This is factually incorrect; the TLS values are lower than the FIPS values, for
example. And also, what “everyone in the know” has always stated isn’t really
true any more.
It would be nice to keep politics out of this list.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe:
...and once again FIPS screws those who don't want to adhere to its
mandates (which everyone in the know has always stated simply reduces
security by requiring the use of less-secure ciphers and implementations,
without allowing patches or modifications to deal with newly-discovered
classes of
There is nothing S390 specific in this, it is a requirement to use GCM based
ciphers for TLS when running in a FIPS validated environment. The check will
be cheaper than trying to avoid it by conditioning on FIPS mode -- hence it’s
unconditional.
Pauli
--
Oracle
Dr Paul Dale |
Hello,
Sorry, I've just found similar checks in all _CGM functions.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:30 PM Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> Could you please clarify?
> The code seems to be related to s390 platform. Do I miss something?
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:55 AM Paul Dale wrote:
>
Dear Paul,
Could you please clarify?
The code seems to be related to s390 platform. Do I miss something?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:55 AM Paul Dale wrote:
> I wasn’t aware of other national standards requiring a similar check.
>
>
>
> I made the change in the AES-GCM code because FIPS demands
I wasn’t aware of other national standards requiring a similar check.
I made the change in the AES-GCM code because FIPS demands the check be inside
the FIPS boundary. I’d have preferred to make it in the TLS layer, but that
mustn’t be inside the FIPS boundary. My understanding is that TLS
Hello,
The issue https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/7129 has introduced a
possibility to limit the amount of TLS records processed without key
changing as required by FIPS.
We in Russia have limitations with the same semantics applicable to Russian
GOST TLS ciphersuites (
