On 9/25/2018 2:14 PM, John Gray wrote:
Hello,
We have a couple questions regarding Jar verification in Java 9 (and later)
...deleted...
There is no mention of the self-integrity checking in this section?
There doesn’t seem to be an explanation as to why it was removed?
The self-inter
Hello,
We have a couple questions regarding Jar verification in Java 9 (and later)
We produce a Java based toolkit that contains a Security Provider. Because of
this, we follow the guidance on the following page:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/security/howtoimplaprovider.htm#JSSEC-GUID-C60
Update is looking good, just a few more comments ...
* java.security
1066 # The following parameters, if configured, are used by the PKCS12
KeyStore
1067 # implementation during the creation of a new keystore. Several of the
1068 # properties may also be used when modifying an existing keystor
2. Is launching a separate process necessary? Can we just call
KeyToolTest::main after setting system properties and copying the files.
I did think about this point.
It looks this test could be run by manual if someone want to set those
system properties.
I supposed that's why KeyToolTest.
On 9/25/2018 12:06 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
On 9/25/2018 8:34 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
Yes, it is possible, at the expense of some assurance related to
security against side-channel attacks. This interoperable
implementation will be available by default in SunEC. A
higher-assurance form of the s
On 9/25/2018 8:34 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
Yes, it is possible, at the expense of some assurance related to
security against side-channel attacks. This interoperable implementation
will be available by default in SunEC. A higher-assurance form of the
same implementation will be available in t
On 9/25/2018 8:34 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
On 9/25/2018 11:15 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
I did not follow the discussion. But it does not sound right to me to
have an application to be provider dependent (#3).
There will be nothing provider-dependent in the TLS implementation. The
point of #3 is
On 9/25/2018 11:15 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
I did not follow the discussion. But it does not sound right to me to
have an application to be provider dependent (#3).
There will be nothing provider-dependent in the TLS implementation. The
point of #3 is to say that we should test the TLS implemen
Hi Max,
On 2018/9/25 22:30, Weijun Wang wrote:
Some questions:
1. Do we still need the OS check on lines 47-49? As long as getLibPath() can
return something, does it mean the test should just run? Especially, does the
test run on Windows?
The original test ignores Windows, and says "This test
I did not follow the discussion. But it does not sound right to me to
have an application to be provider dependent (#3).
I was not confident that a new provider instead of updating the existing
provider is a good idea. It might be a significant effort to update
existing provider. However, i
Thanks, everyone for your feedback on this JEP. I have incorporated this
feedback (received on this mailing list and elsewhere) into the draft
JEP[1]. Here is a summary of the current JEP and plan:
*) A new provider (name TBD) will be developed to hold the new ECC
implementation for the three
Some questions:
1. Do we still need the OS check on lines 47-49? As long as getLibPath() can
return something, does it mean the test should just run? Especially, does the
test run on Windows?
2. Is launching a separate process necessary? Can we just call
KeyToolTest::main after setting system
Webrev updated at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8076190/webrev.03/.
Mostly spec changes. The test is enhanced a little to check for macAlg interop.
> On Sep 24, 2018, at 11:15 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> Right, I understand their usage and the properties are well documented. My
> comment i
Hi,
JDK-8164639 removed NSS libs from repo, so
sun/security/tools/keytool/autotest.sh has to download NSS libs from
artifactory on macosx.
This patch also refactors this shell test to a Java test.
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8209546/webrev.00/
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.ne
(I've changed the subject line to distinguish it from the ongoing
discussion about introducing an execution mode that does not support the
security manager)
On 25/09/2018 03:19, Peter wrote:
Hi Alan,
Ok will do. I'm guessing the test case needs to be a jtreg test?
It doesn't need to be a jtr
15 matches
Mail list logo
