On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:51:24AM +0100, Frédéric Giudicelli via RT wrote:
>
> Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
> microsoft's ?
> It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well, Microsoft and openssl are not the only code available.
Would yo
> SSL/TLS needs a reliable ordered data transmission to run correctly.
> The SSL designers didn't want to worry about packet ordering and
> retransmission since that's not a security problem and it's
> been solved already.
Makes sense.
>
> BTW, since you can define your data structures inside TLS
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 08:11:53AM -0800, Nathan Yocom wrote:
> I have read through everything I can and the only hint I can find that
> SSL may/maynot work with RPC is that "SSL may be used with any
> TCP/stream based communication". Technically I can restrict my RPC
> communication to tcp onl
I have read through everything I can and the only hint I can find that
SSL may/maynot work with RPC is that "SSL may be used with any
TCP/stream based communication". Technically I can restrict my RPC
communication to tcp only - is it possible to then use SSL as well? or
should I just look at
For your own purposes however - you can define any behaviour you like
for sending and interpreting out-of-band data as long as you keep it
parallel to the SSL/TLS (the SSL/TLS stream data can't arrive out of
order). This would be independant of OpenSSL (and any other SSL/TLS
implementation) - and
Hello,
I tried to compile OpenSSL 0.9.8-dev, as taken from
the snapshot dated 20021031 on a windows system. This
works, but only after some tweaks.
System information:
OS: Windows XP Pro
Compiler: MS Visual studio .NET
---
Notes on documentation files:
- The FAQ ("Why does the OpenSSL com
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:51:24
+0100 (MET), "Frédéric Giudicelli via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell
rt> me it's microsoft's?
I'm basing what I say, not only on the way it's implemented, but also
o
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:51:24
+0100 (MET), "Frédéric Giudicelli via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rt> Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell
rt> me it's microsoft's?
I'm basing what I say, not only on the way it's implemented, but also
on
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's ?
It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well... altough PKIX recommends the use of the authorityKeyId, and that the
French Government says you must to have this extension, to be certified,
I'll h
All I know, is that MS Windows 2000 SP3 consider the chain broken, it links
the EndUser Cert with the ROOT CERT, and since the issuer of the EndUser
Cert is not ROOT CA, badaboum, unusable certificate.
When authorityKeyId=keyid, it works, when authorityKeyId=keyid, issuer ->
doesn't work.
So I comp
10 matches
Mail list logo
