On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:09:04 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:24:38 +1100
>
> > > Just in case some libressl dev doesn't want read the full thread in
> > > the Alpine list, they want also a workaround for the lack of time_t
> > > for 32bits platforms on Linux.
> >
> > We've
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:24:38 +1100
> > Just in case some libressl dev doesn't want read the full thread in
> > the Alpine list, they want also a workaround for the lack of time_t
> > for 32bits platforms on Linux.
>
> We've already addressed this - a notafter that exceeds 2038 is
> clamped to
On Saturday 10 February 2018 00:05:27 Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
[snip]
> Just in case some libressl dev doesn't want read the full thread in the
> Alpine list, they want also a workaround for the lack of time_t for
> 32bits platforms on Linux.
We've already addressed this - a notafter
> It isn't just this. Qt 5.10 introduces new dependency on OpenSSL 1.1
> APIs for improved security, and LibreSSL does not implement those APIs
> at all.
The 1.1 API does not improve security.
If anything, the new API requires to you repeat the same or similar
arguments to many functions, and in
On 2018-02-09, A. Wilcox wrote:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
> --DCcmjS5tsvvgDBhgH7OD8mW309G9dT8Dp
> From: "A. Wilcox"
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Message-ID:
> Subject: Re: LibreSSL Linux portability and OpenBSD security
> Referen
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:58:30PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I assume you know far more than me and A.Wilcox from the Alpine list
> but this was mentioned. They are planning to revert to OpenSSL next
> week.
>
> I don't use Alpine, though it is possibly my preferred Linux, just
> thought I wo
On 02/09/18 11:48, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I don't understand that, Cryptography is OK with LibreSSL. There have
> been some problems at various times but they were either patched locally
> or fixed upstream - we're a couple of point releases behind the latest
> at the moment with no libressl-rel
Kevin Chadwick writes:
> I wish libressl could keep the 32 bit time_t workaround til linux
> kernel had fixed the problem instead of knowingly break things. Now I
> don't see we have much of an option since 32 bit linux is basically
> not supported by libressl at this point.
Contortions in the c
Thanks for the information Stu.
Unfortunately I am not sure it will help in the end.
Their project leader Natanael stated the following.
The fact that libressl developers are not willing to workaround 32 bit
linux time_t is the deal br
On 2018-02-09, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> It isn't just this. Qt 5.10 introduces new dependency on OpenSSL 1.1
> APIs for improved security, and LibreSSL does not implement those APIs
> at all.
btw I haven't looked at Qt but some ports are already held back in OpenBSD
because it's just getting too
I assume you know far more than me and A.Wilcox from the Alpine list
but this was mentioned. They are planning to revert to OpenSSL next
week.
I don't use Alpine, though it is possibly my preferred Linux, just
thought I would mention it.
To be honest, I don't even know if facilitating wider adopt
11 matches
Mail list logo
