Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:50:07AM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > RC4 in LOW has a bit of pushback so far. My cover for it is that the > > IETF says "don't use it." So I think saying "if you want it, say so" is > > the way to go. > > I think that's the correct position. People who want

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue 2015-02-10 19:22:44 -0500, Salz, Rich wrote: >> currently, this is an error: >> >> 0 dkg@alice:~$ openssl ciphers -v ALL:!NO-SUCH-CIPHER >> bash: !NO-SUCH-CIPHER: event not found >> 0 dkg@alice:~$ > > Yeah, but that's coming from bash, not openssl :) > ; openssl ciphers -v ALL | wc > 11

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:11:08AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > I think these definitions should stay the same, but I have no > objection to disabling RC4 in DEFAULT, or entirely removing > EXPORT/LOW. And also MD5 (which subsumes all SSLv2 cipher-suites). Note that for most applications the

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:33:03AM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > Not all applications are browsers folks, and libraries need to provide > > stable > > interfaces that mirror the application's intent consistent with expected > > behaviour of existing interfaces. > > Please point to where it is d

Re: [openssl-dev] Seeking feedback on some #ifdef changes

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > >> Please continue to make it possible to build the crypto part of OpenSSL, >> without the X.509 and SSL/TLS code. There are lots of uses of OpenSSL that >> don't need that code. > > You can build crypto without ssl. And the only place OPENSSL_

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl-users] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:30:57AM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > By all means, don't use it, but it is not OpenSSL's choice to make by > > breaking > > the meaning of existing interfaces. > > Except that we've explicitly stated we're breaking things with this new > release. > > Those magic ciph

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

> Not all applications are browsers folks, and libraries need to provide stable > interfaces that mirror the application's intent consistent with expected > behaviour of existing interfaces. Please point to where it is documented what the value of MEDIUM means and what interface is being broken?

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

> By all means, don't use it, but it is not OpenSSL's choice to make by breaking > the meaning of existing interfaces. Except that we've explicitly stated we're breaking things with this new release. Those magic cipher keywords are point-in-time statements. And time has moved on. _

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:22:44AM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > RC4 in LOW has a bit of pushback so far. My cover for it is that > the IETF says "don't use it." So I think saying "if you want it, > say so" is the way to go. By all means, don't use it, but it is not OpenSSL's choice to make by bre

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:17:38PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2015-02-10 16:15:36 -0500, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the > > master branch, which is planned for the next release after 1.0.2 > > > > Anything that uses RC4

Re: [openssl-dev] Seeking feedback on some #ifdef changes

> Please continue to make it possible to build the crypto part of OpenSSL, > without the X.509 and SSL/TLS code. There are lots of uses of OpenSSL that > don't need that code. You can build crypto without ssl. And the only place OPENSSL_NO_X509 appeared was, strangely, in ssl. So crypto builds

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

> currently, this is an error: > > 0 dkg@alice:~$ openssl ciphers -v ALL:!NO-SUCH-CIPHER > bash: !NO-SUCH-CIPHER: event not found > 0 dkg@alice:~$ Yeah, but that's coming from bash, not openssl :) ; openssl ciphers -v ALL | wc 111 6758403 ; openssl ciphers -v ALL:!FOOBAR | wc 111

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:52:02PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I'd further suggest to move everything that's not PFS&AEAD from HIGH to > > MEDIUM. > > I think it's a little early to do that. But once TLS 1.3 is out, then yes :) This is NOT a decision a library should be making on behalf of app

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3694] WinCE openSSL 1.0.1L with FIPS 2.0.8 - fingerprint does not match

Hi Lior, One thing to try would be to try both ways of the define for __thumb. This can explain the fingerprint failure. In fips_canister.c around line 188 # if defined(__thumb__) || defined(__thumb) return (void *)((size_t)instruction_pointer&~1); # else return (void *)instruction_poi

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3694] WinCE openSSL 1.0.1L with FIPS 2.0.8 - fingerprint does not match

Hi Lior, One thing to try would be to try both ways of the define for __thumb. This can explain the fingerprint failure. In fips_canister.c around line 188 # if defined(__thumb__) || defined(__thumb) return (void *)((size_t)instruction_pointer&~1); # else return (void *)instruction_poi

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue 2015-02-10 16:15:36 -0500, Salz, Rich wrote: > I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the master > branch, which is planned for the next release after 1.0.2 > > Anything that uses RC4 or MD5 what was in MEDIUM is now moved to LOW yes, please! > Anything that wa

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:38:01PM +0100, Hanno B?ck wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:15:36 + > "Salz, Rich" wrote: > > > Comments? > > Sounds good. > > I'd further suggest to move everything that's not PFS&AEAD > from HIGH to MEDIUM. Thus breaking applications that were previously using H

Re: [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

On 07/02/15 14:41, Richard Moore wrote: > > > On 3 February 2015 at 22:02, Rich Salz > wrote: > > As we've already said, we are moving to making most OpenSSL data > structures opaque. We deliberately used a non-specific term. :) > As of Matt's commit of t

Re: [openssl-dev] Seeking feedback on some #ifdef changes

Salz, Rich wrote: > OPENSSL_NO_CHAIN_VERIFY > OPENSSL_NO_RFC3779 > OPENSSL_NO_TLS > OPENSSL_NO_TLS1 > OPENSSL_NO_TLS1_2_CLIENT > OPENSSL_NO_TLSEXT > OPENSSL_NO_X509 > OPENSSL_NO_X509_VERIFY Please continue to make it possible to buil

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

> Sounds good. Thanks. > I'd further suggest to move everything that's not PFS&AEAD from HIGH to > MEDIUM. I think it's a little early to do that. But once TLS 1.3 is out, then yes :) ___ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:15:36PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the master > branch, which is planned for the next release after 1.0.2 > > Anything that uses RC4 or MD5 what was in MEDIUM is now moved to LOW Note, that RC4 is alre

Re: [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:15:36 + "Salz, Rich" wrote: > Comments? Sounds good. I'd further suggest to move everything that's not PFS&AEAD from HIGH to MEDIUM. -- Hanno Böck http://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: ha...@hboeck.de GPG: BBB51E42 pgpwviI3Wtd4z.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatu

[openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for post-1.0.2

I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the master branch, which is planned for the next release after 1.0.2 Anything that uses RC4 or MD5 what was in MEDIUM is now moved to LOW Anything that was 40-bit encryption is removed: /* Cipher 03 "EXP-RC4-MD5" removed */ /* Ci

Re: [openssl-dev] Submitting new bugs to rt via mail broken?

On 10/02/15 19:23, Rainer Jung wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I sent a mail to r...@openssl.org 3 days ago, subject "OpenSSL 1.0.2 "make > test" bus error in evp_test (Solaris 10 Sparc, sun4u)". > > The mail didn't create a new ticket in RT, nor was it forwarded to the > dev list. > > Should I r

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3695] DTLS Handshake issue (openssl-1.0.1e-dtls-ecc-ext.patch) leads to process crash

Matt tried to explain this before. 1.0.1e-30 is not a version that OpenSSL provides. You will have to contact your vendor. The backtrace information is not usable as there are no function names; you will have to build a debugging version. We cannot help you. -- Principal Security Engineer,

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3695] DTLS Handshake issue (openssl-1.0.1e-dtls-ecc-ext.patch) leads to process crash

Matt tried to explain this before. 1.0.1e-30 is not a version that OpenSSL provides. You will have to contact your vendor. The backtrace information is not usable as there are no function names; you will have to build a debugging version. We cannot help you. -- Principal Security Engineer,

[openssl-dev] Submitting new bugs to rt via mail broken?

Hello everyone, I sent a mail to r...@openssl.org 3 days ago, subject "OpenSSL 1.0.2 "make test" bus error in evp_test (Solaris 10 Sparc, sun4u)". The mail didn't create a new ticket in RT, nor was it forwarded to the dev list. Should I resend or simply be more patient? Thanks and regards,

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3695] DTLS Handshake issue (openssl-1.0.1e-dtls-ecc-ext.patch) leads to process crash

Bug report OS: Red hat enterprise Linux 6.5 OpenSSL Version: 1.0.1e-30 While doing DTLS testing with openssl-1.0.1e-30 Version and patches for RT3327, RT3470 and RT3483 on top of that, we are facing an issue where our process is crashing during the duration run of 24 hours. Use Case: *T

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3694] WinCE openSSL 1.0.1L with FIPS 2.0.8 - fingerprint does not match

I was successful at compiling the FIPS 2.0.8 module for Windows CE exactly as provided without any modifications. Additionally, I built fips_algvs.exe to successfully validate the canister on the target system. After tweaking some #ifdef directives in the openSSL 1.0.1L, I was able to get it to

[openssl-dev] EPIPE handling

I was trying to generate random numbers to a pipe yesterday, and was surprised by the openssl command's handling of EPIPE. Consider: strace openssl rand -base64 1000 | head -n1 That will redundantly write all the data (ignoring the EPIPE error), even when the pipe is closed. For the enc co

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3692] OpenSSL bug(s) && patch

On Tue Feb 10 14:44:18 2015, cristifa...@gmail.com wrote: > Version: 1.0.2 > Platform: Windows x86 (VC-WIN32) > Compiled with: openssl-fips-2.0.5 > > Hi all, > I browsed the open bug list for a little while, but i didn't find > this. This was raised in ticket 3673 and fixed by this commit: 6fa805f

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3692] OpenSSL bug(s) && patch

Version: 1.0.2 Platform: Windows x86 (VC-WIN32) Compiled with: openssl-fips-2.0.5 Hi all, I browsed the open bug list for a little while, but i didn't find this. I've got 3 compilation errors on OpenSSL (details above) on Windows 32bit. I didn't test it yet, but the first 2 errors (*size_t* being