On 02/09/2022 13:53, Mark Andrews wrote:
Hi Mark,
We don’t log rsamd5 is disabled now ec or ed curves when they are
not supported by the crypto provider. Why should rsasha1 based algs be
special?
The problem I see with 9.18.6 is that at startup, it is checking to see
if it can validate
On 25.08.22 18:10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The lack of interest by others proves that From: munging is not so
much of a nuisance as they say...
On Mon 29/Aug/2022 12:09:10 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This will come sooner or later, however:
earlier this year I've done small dmarc
Mark Andrews writes:
> We don’t log rsamd5 is disabled now ec or ed curves when they are not
> supported by the crypto provider. Why should rsasha1 based algs be
> special?
Because RSASHA1 validation still is a MUST in RFC8624? MD5 is and ED is
not.
I don't know if disabled EC curves is a real
We don’t log rsamd5 is disabled now ec or ed curves when they are not supported
by the crypto provider. Why should rsasha1 based algs be special?
--
Mark Andrews
> On 2 Sep 2022, at 20:37, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
>
> On 01/09/2022 23:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>> Yes. You will
On 01/09/2022 23:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
Hi Mark,
Yes. You will need to restart the server.
Okay, I'm trying out 9.18.6 on an Oracle Linux 9 server. When starting
BIND, it doesn't log anything about disabling RSASHA1. But when I query
it for ietf.org/SOA, I get an unvalidated response.
5 matches
Mail list logo