I am trying to establish a connection from a openldap/openssl client to Oracle
Internet Directory. I know this isn't much to go on but will at least begin the
conversation. I am getting the following error on the client. I am able to
connect to 443 but unable to connect to 636.
With the
I've been trying to build OpenSSL 0.9.8h for WIN64A.
I have Visual Studio 2005, SP1 and the Server 2008 SDK (6.1) on 32 bit
Windows XP.
I run:
perl Configure VC-WIN64A
ms\do_win64a
nmake -f ms\ntdll.mak
I get a ton of errors from ms\uptable.asm. For
Brant Thomsen wrote:
The C++ compiler in Microsoft's Visual Studio 2005 (and later) makes time_t
a 64-bit number when compiling 32-bit code. Older compilers, such as Visual
C++ 6.0, make time_t a 32-bit number, which would cause year 2038 issues.
I'd very much like to see TAI64 adopted where
Hello
Could you unsubscribe me from this mailing list.
Regards
Sunil.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Schwartz
Sent: Fri 6/6/2008 10:09 AM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: RE: 2038 date limit
Changing this is would involve including
Is there a plan to circumvent the limit, as opposed to just
saying stay
within 2038 ?
Afaik, the only current solution is to switch to 64bit openssl.
On a lot of platforms there are ways to use 64 bit time_t even on
32 bit OSs. This would look like a good interim solution IMHO.
Mark.
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/05/2008 03:01:14 PM:
I am trying to establish a connection from a openldap/openssl client to
Oracle Internet
Directory. I know this isn't much to go on but will at least begin the
conversation. I
am getting the following error on the client. I am able
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
1) All routines are based on a uint64_t to hold the seconds since the epoch.
So you can still easily convert to/from time_t for in-range values.
Well there has been a problem on some platforms in the past which don't have a
64 bit integer type.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:28PM -0700, Ace wrote:
PKI Handshakes are always the cause of worry when it comes to performance
but now I am facing problems even with the normal encryption. The data size
is around 2k. Woud you suggest using RC4-MD5?
I never suggest optimizing something, until
Hello everyone,
I have a different problem now. I want to add a X509v3 Authority Key
Identifier field in a x509v3 certificate.
This field must have these three parts :
- keyid (the keyid of the issuer)
- dirname (the same string as issuer field)
- serial (of issuer)
int type =
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008, delcour.pierre wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have a different problem now. I want to add a X509v3 Authority Key
Identifier field in a x509v3 certificate.
This field must have these three parts :
- keyid (the keyid of the issuer)
- dirname (the same string as issuer field)
Thanks Victor! Yes the performance is critical. Another thing is, I just
checked the PKI handshakes with RC4 and was amazed to see the 75% of gain in
performance. Am I loosing something more than DH parameters in handshakes
when going with RC4?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Victor Duchovni
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008, David Schwartz wrote:
1) All routines are based on a uint64_t to hold the seconds
since the epoch.
So you can still easily convert to/from time_t for in-range values.
Well there has been a problem on some platforms in the past which
don't have a
64 bit integer
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:56AM -0700, Ace wrote:
Thanks Victor! Yes the performance is critical. Another thing is, I just
checked the PKI handshakes with RC4 and was amazed to see the 75% of gain in
performance. Am I loosing something more than DH parameters in handshakes
when going with
13 matches
Mail list logo
