Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-20 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:08:07PM +0100, Bodo Moeller wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:22:44PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > > > As far as the 0.9.9 patch is concerned, is it possible to cache the > > initial sorted order? Some applications process cipherlists for every > > connection (dest

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-20 Thread Bodo Moeller
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 03:22:44PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > As far as the 0.9.9 patch is concerned, is it possible to cache the > initial sorted order? Some applications process cipherlists for every > connection (destination dependent cipher lists), and it would be nice to > keep this effi

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-20 Thread Bodo Moeller
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:19:27PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > Regardless of the specific details, using a comparator makes the order > more systematic. One can still quible over whether anonymous auth beats > RSA auth, and I may not get my wish there, but I still think a sort based > based on

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-20 Thread Bodo Moeller
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:19:27PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > [...] I > think it is cleaner to put the anonymous kEECDH and kEDH ciphers first, > they use the strongest key-exchange mechanisms available, and best meed > the aut

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-19 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:19:27PM -0500, Victor Duchovni wrote: > This is not quite right IMHO. I think the anonymous ciphers MUST be > first, because: > > 1. Most applications use "DEFAULT" and don't see them at all. > > 2. Applications that want a

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-19 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:43:50PM +0100, Bodo Moeller wrote: Thanks, a giant leap in the right direction! Nit-picking below: > + /* Move anonymous ciphers to the end. Usually, these will remain > disabled. > + * (For applications that allow them, they aren't too bad,

Re: ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-19 Thread Bodo Moeller
ations should not be exposed to. > > Applications that don't need/want ciphers outside the "DEFAULT" list > can further restrict the cipher choice with "DEFAULT:!this:!that" ... > > Things get more complicated for applications that want to support > anonymo

ALL vs DEFAULT or how to properly order anonymous ciphers?

2007-02-17 Thread Victor Duchovni
ot;DEFAULT" list can further restrict the cipher choice with "DEFAULT:!this:!that" ... Things get more complicated for applications that want to support anonymous ciphers but still maintain a sensible cipher order: - With OpenSSL 0.9.7 we have: #define SSL_DEFAULT_CIPHER_LI

Re: Anonymous Ciphers

2001-12-17 Thread Lutz Jaenicke
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 09:49:37AM -0500, Andrew Finnell wrote: > I am trying to match up some anonymous ciphers to use between JSSE > and OpenSSL. I did a dump of JSSE and came across some anonymous ciphers. I > then did a dump of the ciphers built into my build of OpenSSL. I di

Anonymous Ciphers

2001-12-17 Thread Andrew Finnell
Title: Anonymous Ciphers Good Morning All,     I am trying to match up some anonymous ciphers to use between JSSE and OpenSSL. I did a dump of JSSE and came across some anonymous ciphers. I then did a dump of the ciphers built into my build of OpenSSL. I did see any that specifically