Hi Team,
Any updates plz.
Thanks,
Kannan Narayanasamy.
-Original Message-
From: openssl-dev [mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Kannan
Narayanasamy -X (kannanar - HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED at Cisco)
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 6:43 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject
Hello All,
Following steps are done to check the FIPS feasibility .
To check ASLR dependency the following link was referred.
http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/FIPS-Module-1-2-build-with-Visual-Studio-2010-fails-self-tests-td36372.html
Linker properties were changed in visual studio 2008 for the
On 31/07/15 19:19, Brian Smith wrote:
>
> Also, I question the need for people to sign a CLA to contribute to OpenSSL.
> OpenSSL has been very successful for decades without a CLA requirement. Lots
> of other projects are extremely successful without a CLA. A CLA seems
> unnecessary.
More import
Hello All,
Following steps are done to check the FIPS feasibility .
To check ASLR dependency the following link was referred.
http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/FIPS-Module-1-2-build-with-Visual-Studio-2010-fails-self-tests-td36372.html
Linker properties were changed in visual studio 2008 for the
--On Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:02 AM +0100 Matt Caswell
wrote:
On 03/08/15 22:51, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
It is curious as well that the openssl project did not solicit feedback
from it's community before announcing said license change to see what
the general consensus of the community
On 03/08/15 22:51, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> It is curious as well that the openssl project did not solicit feedback
> from it's community before announcing said license change to see what
> the general consensus of the community is on the best path forward, and
> instead is moving towards a s
--On Friday, July 31, 2015 3:19 PM -0400 Brian Smith
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Hanno Böck wrote:
"Salz, Rich" wrote:
In the spirit of making OpenSSL as useful as possible for everyone I
would consider a permissive license that's more compatible (e.g. MIT) a
wiser cho
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 at 14:09:33 + Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:07:18AM -0600, Hilarie Orman wrote:
> > > > 1. Use strong primes as in Rivest/Silverman. Simply described,
> > > > choose large primes r and s. Choose small factors i and j, gcd(i, j)
> > > > = 1.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 02:36:03AM +, p...@securecottage.com wrote:
> I have looked at your latest source to see if you have a possible common
> factor for (p-1) and (q-1) in your RSA key generation code.
I've seen various proposals heres to generate what might be
stronger RSA keys. But 1 que
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:03:26PM +, sandeep umesh via RT wrote:
> I was expecting that openssl will reject connection request with EXP cipher
> which is not happening as seen above.
> Could you please verify this? Thanks
If you configure it to allow export ciphers or ALL, of course it's
goin
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:07:18AM -0600, Hilarie Orman wrote:
> > > 1. Use strong primes as in Rivest/Silverman. Simply described,
> > > choose large primes r and s. Choose small factors i and j, gcd(i, j)
> > > = 1. Find p such that 1+2*i*r is prime and q such that 1+2*j*s is
> > > prime
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:59:49AM +, p...@securecottage.com wrote:
>
> I'd like to thank several people for looking into my assertion that it
> is possible for common factors in p-1 and q-1 to leak from the
> factorisation of n-1.
Hi Paul.
I came across a paper by Mckee and Pinch [1] you mi
Hi,
I updated openssl version to 1.0.1p (to address logjam) and configured
sendmail.
To verify the logjam fix, I used openssl s_client and connected to the smtp
server.
---
Default log:
$ openssl s_client -starttls smtp -crlf -connect 127.0.0.1:25 -cipher EXP
CONNECTE
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 08:08:52PM -0600, Hilarie Orman wrote:
> For primes p and q for which p-1 and q-1 have no common factor <= n,
> probability of gcd(p, q) > 1 is very roughly 1/n.
Hi
There's a typo or two here. Assuming p!=q, we always have gcd(p,q)=1.
>
> Therefore, 1. Use strong primes
On Mon Aug 03 01:55:07 2015, prav...@viptela.com wrote:
> Yes that worked. The previous version we were using 1.0.1m.
Commit has been applied to git here:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/9e43fe9a2bd38f06385b5b721f7c4b3ff0e4163f
Closing ticket.
Matt
15 matches
Mail list logo
