> What about to remove declaration of FIPS_mode and FIPS_mode_set?
> Those functions could be used by external packages at configure time to
> detect that fips is not supported at all.
> Note 1.0.0 does not declare both functions.
For various reasons, the team wants them there.
> What about to remove declaration of FIPS_mode and FIPS_mode_set?
> Those functions could be used by external packages at configure time to
> detect that fips is not supported at all.
> Note 1.0.0 does not declare both functions.
For various reasons, the team wants them there.
This has been (partially) fixed, so it can probably be closed.
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
we did everything we want to do, closing this.
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
> So, does the above mean that my patch is not going to be merged?
No. It will be.
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:34:33am -0400, Steve Marquess wrote:
> On 10/31/2015 08:26 AM, Alessandro Ghedini via RT wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't know what your intentions are with FIPS support in master, ...
>
> We would like to continue to provide a FIPS validated module for the 1.1
> (and
On 10/31/2015 08:26 AM, Alessandro Ghedini via RT wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know what your intentions are with FIPS support in master, ...
We would like to continue to provide a FIPS validated module for the 1.1
(and subsequent) releases. Unfortunately the current module ("OpenSSL
FIPS Object
Hi,
I don't know what your intentions are with FIPS support in master, but after
the removal of most if the fips/ code, several bits and pieces of now broken
code have remained in the codebase. IMO it'd be better to just remove it for
now.
See the following GitHub pull request:
Can't recall previous discussions on this, but would it be possible to have a
FIPS engine?
Cheers
Richard
Steve Marquess skrev: (31 oktober 2015 13:34:33 CET)
>On 10/31/2015 08:26 AM, Alessandro Ghedini via RT wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know what your intentions are
On October 31, 2015 2:09:50 PM GMT+01:00, Steve Marquess
wrote:
>On 10/31/2015 09:01 AM, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> Can't recall previous discussions on this, but would it be possible
>to have a FIPS engine?
>
>Of a sort, yes. I'll let Steve Henson speak to the details,
On 10/31/2015 09:01 AM, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Can't recall previous discussions on this, but would it be possible to have a
> FIPS engine?
Of a sort, yes. I'll let Steve Henson speak to the details, but it is
his hope (and mine) that FIPS module support for 1.1 and beyond would be
modular so
11 matches
Mail list logo