Can you provide the trace output files that Kyle asked for? Probably that
can help us understand whats happening.
-Sandeep
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback I received regarding this matter.
>
> I'm just sending one last message to
Either side can initiate a renegotiation at any point. It does not
matter which side does it. The Server does it by sending a
HelloRequest, the Client does it by sending a ClientHello. (When the
Client sees a HelloRequest from the server, it responds with a
ClientHello if it is willing to renego
Hi all,
Thanks for all the feedback I received regarding this matter.
I'm just sending one last message to close the issue: despite
BIO_do_handshake() succeeding, I couldn't retrieve the client certificate
with SSL_get_peer_certificate(). :-(
What I did is remove the BIO layer from my software a
Ujwal Chinthala wrote:
Hmm, that could be a problem.
This code is going to run on a box which is shipped to the customer.
So I don't believe we want to ship these boxes with private keys in them :)
any PKI fully secured session requires each host to have its own private
key, and the other
Saju,
forget about sender and receiver. Your communication endpoint, ie. client or
server, issues a renegotiation on an SSL connection handle, just like it reads
and writes to this SSL connection handle. Which logic you apply on when to
issue your call to renegotiate is up to you and depends on
Thank you Patrick. I'm aware that the SSL Client (SSL_connect) and SSL
Server(SSL_accept) can renegotiate an SSL session. But my question is should
the Sender(SSL_write) or the Receiver(SSL_read) do the renegotiation? For
ex: if the Sender and Receiver decides to renegotiate either at a size(1G)
This is the issue I reported as RT #2086. The problem has been fixed in the
1.0.0 tree but only partly addressed in the 0.9.8 tree.
As I posted last week:
Appears to be fixed in 1.0.0 tree; but 0.9.8m-beta still has part of the
problem because it didn't get the "remove duplicate code" part of
Hi Saju,
-Original Message-
From: Saju Paul
Who as in Sender-encrypter or Receiver-decrypter should renegotiate an SSL
session? Can it be both or is it only the Sender? Is there a document that
describes the protocol?
Does renegotiation always require SSL handshake? (SSL_do_handshake)
> Namrata Sorte wrote:
> > Ya to be more specific, I want to sign and verify Word Document
> > File and using command line will be fine for now.
Are you looking for something like
openssl smime -sign -in ml.doc...
openssl smime -encrypt -in in.doc...
maybe? With RSA based certificates it uses R
Forwarded to openssl-users for public discussion
Best regards,
Lutz
- Forwarded message from Del Hyman Jones -
Subject: Building Win64 0.9.8l on VS2008
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:15:28 -
Thread-Topic: Building Win64 0.9.8l on VS2008
Thread-Index: AcqjYiayMNdYT1+HTXyt5bFZjxGglQ
Hmm, that could be a problem.
This code is going to run on a box which is shipped to the customer.
So I don't believe we want to ship these boxes with private keys in them
:)__
OpenSSL Project htt
1. Who as in Sender-encrypter or Receiver-decrypter should renegotiate
an SSL session? Can it be both or is it only the Sender? Is there a
document that describes the protocol?
2. Does renegotiation always require SSL handshake? (SSL_do_handshake)
Are they any circumstances where the ha
12 matches
Mail list logo
