Clarification??

Dear Experts, How openSSL will looks EGD ? Is there any such documentation available on net related to it? Please share your experience. Thanks & Regards. Shrikant. __ OpenSSL Project http://ww

Re: Clarification??

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:06:45AM +0100, Srikanta Nayak wrote: > How openSSL will looks EGD ? Is there any such documentation available on net >related to it? http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#USER1 Lutz -- Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTU Cottbus

[openssl-dev] Logjam clarification

Folks, can you pls confirm that none of the below ciphers are affected by this bug? From my understanding, only ciphers containing DH or DHE would be affected. TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA (0x62) TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_RC4_56_SHA TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_4

SSL_pending() clarification/Arbitrary Length Messages?

Okay, so I need a bit of help. I have read through a bunch of documentation/examples, but I haven't really found a clear answer. How can I use blocking IO with SSL_read/SSL_write to form a concept of an arbitrary length message (preferably without a set terminator of some sort)? For instance, can

Re: [openssl-dev] Logjam clarification

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:41:57PM -0400, Chris Hill wrote: > Folks, can you pls confirm that none of the below ciphers are affected by > this bug? From my understanding, only ciphers containing DH or DHE would be > affected. > > TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA (0x62) > TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH

[openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

Hi All, To resolve openSSL POODLE vulnerability we need to disable the SSLv3. In our application we have using openSSL through Apache. We have disabled using the below lines. SSLProtocol all -SSLv2 -SSLv3 We are using 443 as SSL port. The command openssl s_client -connect :443 -ssl3 shows the

need some clarification about the BN_LLONG define

PQ_64BIT priority); line 760 / 0_9_8 and line 803 / 1_0_0 and HEAD is: dtls1_buffer_record(s, &(s->d1->buffered_app_data), 0); maybe the prototype from 1_0_0/HEAD needs backported to 0_9_8 branch? Then I would also like to get some clarification about the BN_LLONG define, and if its

Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:43:24PM +, Kannan Narayanasamy -X (kannanar - HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED at Cisco) wrote: > Hi All, > > To resolve openSSL POODLE vulnerability we need to disable the SSLv3. In our > application we have using openSSL through Apache. We have disabled using the > belo

Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

asamy. -Original Message- From: openssl-dev [mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Roeckx Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:37 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:43:24PM +, K

Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:37 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:43:24PM +, Kannan Narayanasamy -X (kannanar - HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED at Cisco) wrote: Hi All, To resolve openSSL POODLE vulnerabili

Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

On Behalf Of Joey Yandle Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:52 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification The config script takes no-ssl2 and no-ssl3 args: ./config no-ssl2 no-ssl3 ... On 06/24/2015 11:57 AM, Kannan Narayanasamy -X (ka

Re: [openssl-dev] Openssl Poodle Vulnerability Clarification

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 07:02:50PM +, Kannan Narayanasamy -X (kannanar - HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED at Cisco) wrote: > Hi Joy, > > Thanks for the steps. I have tried with exclusion option(Command used: > ./config no-idea no-ssl3 shared --prefix=/Openssl-1/) and getting the below > error whil

Clarification regarding extension supported in OpenSSL certificates.

Hi, We are using openSSL command line tool for generating version 3 CA certificates as well IKE initiator/Responder certificates. We have the following doubts in our mind, Could you please clarify the same. 1. Does openSSL support version 3 certificate which is compliant to RFC 5280?

Re: need some clarification about the BN_LLONG define

9_8 and line 803 / 1_0_0 and HEAD is: > > dtls1_buffer_record(s, &(s->d1->buffered_app_data), 0); > > maybe the prototype from 1_0_0/HEAD needs backported to 0_9_8 branch? > > Then I would also like to get some clarification about the BN_LLONG > define, and if it

[openssl-dev] [openssl-announce] Clarification on forthcoming releases

Clarification on the forthcoming OpenSSL releases = To clarify, the mentioned HMAC ABI incompatibility occurred in recently released versions 1.0.2b and 1.0.1n which are security fixes but which may cause other problems due to the ABI issue

FIPS 2 mode with shared libs : Clarification needed .....

Dear all, ( On a Linux 2.6.32 x86_64 ) I'm trying to build a FIPS 2 openssl When I configure the fips code, config spits out as warning #cd openssl-fips-2.0-test-20120416 #./config Configured for linux-x86_64. WARNING: OpenSSL has been configured using unsupported option(

RE: Clarification regarding extension supported in OpenSSL certificates.

l-dev@openssl.org' Subject: Clarification regarding extension supported in OpenSSL certificates. Hi, We are using openSSL command line tool for generating version 3 CA certificates as well IKE initiator/Responder certificates. We have the following doubts in our mind, Could you please c

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4101] [PATCH] Doc clarification for EVP_DigestVerifyFinal

Minor doc clarification: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/446 I embarrassingly misread the previous documentation to indicate that 0 was a failure and other values mean success and figured others might do the same. Cheers, Adam ___ openssl-bugs

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4101] [PATCH] Doc clarification for EVP_DigestVerifyFinal

OpenSSL_1_0_1-stable 2d404dc Clarify return values for EVP_DigestVerifyFinal. OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable 8d43c00 Clarify return values for EVP_DigestVerifyFinal. master 8cbb048 Clarify return values for EVP_DigestVerifyFinal. Author: Adam Eijdenberg Date: Mon Oct 19 11:16:25 2015 -0700 Clarify return

[openssl-dev] need clarification on openssl s_server s_client applications

Hi, When I try to send any data > MTU (1500) from s_server/client applications (in DTLS mode), I see an error (errno:90) on the sender side. Is it normal? Is it a limitation of the s_server/client applications or the OpenSSL implementation or the DTLS standard itself? I'm using Openssl-1.0.2g on

Re: FIPS 2 mode with shared libs : Clarification needed .....

On 04/16/2012 04:41 PM, Simon Convey wrote: > Dear all, > ( On a Linux 2.6.32 x86_64 ) I'm trying to build a > FIPS 2 openssl When I configure the fips code, config spits out as > warning > ... > > WARNING: OpenSSL has been configured using unsupported option(s) to internall

Re: [openssl-dev] need clarification on openssl s_server s_client applications

DTLS standard: DTLS does not permit fragmentation of the data (handshaking has it’s own fragmentation mechanism separate from the record layer). See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4347#section-4.2.3 -- -Todd Short // tsh...@akamai.com // "One if by land, two if by sea,

Re: [openssl-dev] need clarification on openssl s_server s_client applications

Hi Todd, Thanks for the clarification. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Short, Todd wrote: > DTLS standard: DTLS does not permit fragmentation of the data (handshaking > has it’s own fragmentation mechanism separate from the record layer). > > See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc

[openssl.org #2446] Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files

Hi OpenSSL Project , I was hoping you could help us with some open source issues. Our company policy of explicit copyright license compliance is being enforced by corporate. We are being required to assure them some of the files from the Open Source SSL project are only subject to OpenSSL lice

[openssl.org #2446] Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files

We're working on clarifying and updating everything in the distribution, as far as licenses go. But it is a slow complicated procedure. Until then, the only information available is in the files themselves. -- Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org _

RE: [openssl.org #2446] AutoReply: Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files

clarification on licensing requirements of certain files Greetings, This message has been automatically generated in response to the creation of a trouble ticket regarding: "Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files", a summary of which appears below.

Re: [openssl.org #2446] AutoReply: Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files

On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:34:54 am Mitchell, Lisa via RT wrote: > Hi, Any possibility of getting a reply to this? We need to satisfy our > lawyers. :-) I think your chances of getting a response this year are low - I'm waiting on a request to use the name for a QCA backend for about 3 ye

Re: [openssl.org #2446] AutoReply: Need clarification on licensing requirements of certain files

On Saturday, February 12, 2011 09:34:54 am Mitchell, Lisa via RT wrote: > Hi, Any possibility of getting a reply to this? We need to satisfy our > lawyers. :-) I think your chances of getting a response this year are low - I'm waiting on a request to use the name for a QCA backend for about 3 ye