(Ducking smelling connection!) Use sha1.
> On May 26, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Brantley Coile <brantleyco...@me.com> wrote:
>
> Fixed. Use shall instead of md5 and everyone is happy.
>
>> On May 26, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Brantley Coile <brantleyco...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> UPDATE:
>>
>> I now have reason to believe that they just removed MD5 from known signing
>> algorithms, and that a SHA1 will work. Anyone know anything about this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> bwc
>>
>>> On May 25, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Brantley Coile <brantleyco...@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Turns out the CSR wasn’t acceptable because of the MD5 signature. It seems
>>> the that they should be signed as RSA and not MD5. MD5 is not deemed
>>> secure enough. The plan 9 code is signing everything with MD5. Who owns
>>> this code? Has anyone fixed this yet?
>>>
>>>> On May 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9...@9netics.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> going by my notes from the last time i used plan9 tools to generate a
>>>> CSR, the only differences i see are quoting the O attribute to handle
>>>> spaces in organization name and dropping the word "SIGNING" from
>>>> PEM header/footer.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks all. It goes through sslshopper fine, but the CA still doesn’t
>>>>> like it. I’ll call them tomorrow. Thanks for all the help.
>>>>>
>>>>> bwc
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 23, 2015, at 1:08 PM, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I then pasted the contents of ‘csr’ into the page and get “This CSR
>>>>>>> has an invalid signature!”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's worth playing with openssl to check the output from auth/rsa2csr.
>>>>>> The diagnostics are bound to be a bit less vague. Trying your
>>>>>> instructions, the PEM encoded csr includes the seemingly unwanted word
>>>>>> "SIGNING" in the headers. When I remove it (and a space) openssl req
>>>>>> reports a valid certificate request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
