On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:40:08AM +, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> Looks like I'm wrong, from the behaviour.
>
> It's the second of the possible places, and "i" is 129.
> It appears to be failing the WPACKET_sub_allocate_bytes_u16()
> call. %rsi before the call, which I think should be
> the
On 24/03/2020 20:25, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>> I'm guessing it is not the first. The second would an issue with a
>>> particular issuer on the CA list (does Exim configure a list of CAs to
>>> send to the server?),
>>
>> I don't think so
Looks like I'm wrong, from the behaviour.
It's the
Makes perfectly sense. Thank you.
> Am 25.03.2020 um 18:49 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni :
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Dirk wrote:
>
My expectation (maybe wrong) is that the serial and the issuer name belong
to
the same X509 certificate that the key id belongs to.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Dirk wrote:
> >> My expectation (maybe wrong) is that the serial and the issuer name belong
> >> to
> >> the same X509 certificate that the key id belongs to.
> >
> > Your expectation is "wrong". The issuer DN in the AKID is in fact
> > supposed to be
Thank you Victor. Can you point me to the rfc that defines this?
Best
Am 25.03.2020 um 15:32 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni :
>
>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Dirk Menstermann wrote:
>>
>> My expectation (maybe wrong) is that the serial and the issuer name belong to
>> the same X509
Thanks. I'll try searching GH issues next time (or opening a new
one?) rather than replying to a commit.
On 3/25/20 2:37 AM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> There is an ongoing discussion on this issue here:
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378
>
> In the specific case of
> On Mar 24, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Dirk Menstermann wrote:
>
> My expectation (maybe wrong) is that the serial and the issuer name belong to
> the same X509 certificate that the key id belongs to.
Your expectation is "wrong". The issuer DN in the AKID is in fact
supposed to be the issuer's
There is an ongoing discussion on this issue here:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378
In the specific case of s_client/s_server this actually uncovered a bug
in s_server, which is why you see the problem there.
Matt
On 24/03/2020 23:35, John Baldwin wrote:
> I replied to the
On 24/03/2020 15:02, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>>> The second question is somewhat related. Has there been a decision yet
>> whether the FOM 3.0 will go through a 140-2 or a 140-3 validation?
>
>>We are going through 140-2.
>
> Has the list of validated platforms been made public
FYI: I restarted the discussion in #7946
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/7946#issuecomment-603545804
Matthias
11 matches
Mail list logo