EKR wrote:
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EKR wrote:
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicolas Roumiantzeff wrote:
Does anybody know why both IE and Netscape browser implement exclusively RSA
certificates?
I have no idea, but one reason might be the need for
Nicolas Roumiantzeff wrote:
Does anybody know why both IE and Netscape browser implement exclusively RSA
certificates?
My feeling is that Microsoft and Netscape both made a deal with RSA Security
to get a "low" price RSA license at the condition of not implementing DSA.
As a matter of
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. The server's generation of its ephemeral DH key.
2. The server's DSA signature.
3. The client's generation of its ephemeral DH key.
[snip]
I've dug out the nearest I can get to what made me think random numbers
were critical for DH key exchange
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EKR wrote:
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicolas Roumiantzeff wrote:
Does anybody know why both IE and Netscape browser implement exclusively RSA
certificates?
I have no idea, but one reason might be the need for good random number
This isn't quite true - you can compile OpenSSL to be copyright free.
However, as far as I know (and my knowledge is a bit out-of-date, so
this may have changed), this then leaves SSL with cipher suites which
are not supported by the common browsers. So you can only write secure
applications
ne-
De : Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date : mardi 30 novembre 1999 17:21
Objet : Re: RSA Security and Red Hat, Inc. Sign Licensing Agreement
This isn't quite true - you can compile OpenSSL to be copyright free.
However, as far as I know (and my
Andrew Cooke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This isn't quite true - you can compile OpenSSL to be copyright free.
You mean without the patented algrorithms, presumably? (i.e., "patent
free" not "copyright free".) The code is still copyright, but the
copyright looks pretty liberal (and wouldn't
After about 2 weeks worth of research (talking to this list, RSA,
our lawyers, etc) I found that if your a company in the US, and you
want SSL to talk to IE or Netscape, you have to either:
- Break the law
or
- Buy a license from RSA (very expensive)
or
- Buy a commercial SSL implimentation
OK, so what is a distributor to do? ;-)
In short: Is it possible to build OpenSSL without and code that is
patent infringed, and still have it talk to Netscape and M$IE? What if I
did:
./Configure --prefix=/usr --openssldir=%{openssldir} linux-elf \
no-bf no-idea no-rc2 no-rc4 no-rc5 no-rsa
Short answer no.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ben Laurie
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RSA Security and Red Hat, Inc. Sign Licensing Agreement
"William H. Geiger III&q
William H. Geiger III wrote:
I am rather confused as to why Red Hat would go with a closed, proprietary
crypto library instead of going with OpenSSL, doesn't seem to be the Linux
way.
Probably because in the US if you want to use RSA then you don't have
any choice. Well at least until
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/13/99
at 10:47 AM, "Erik M. A. Kline" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am rather confused as to why Red Hat would go with a closed, proprietary
crypto library instead of going with OpenSSL, doesn't seem to be the Linux
way.
I think there are stringent, or at
If RedHat does this - well - there is Suse, Debian, etc. Also we can go with
Apache/modssl and this is my prefered way
anyway... either that or twaite.
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:32:18 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/13/99
at 10:47 AM, "Erik M. A. Kline"
13 matches
Mail list logo
