I'm using openssl version 0.9.4 and have an odd problem. I can make a
valid SSL connection every other time that I run my app (this happens on
both win32 and Solaris). I have debugged down into the ssl library and
find that when it fails, it fails in the get_server_hello() function.
The low le
I'm using openssl version 0.9.4 and have an odd problem. I can make a
valid SSL connection every other time that I run my app (this happens on
both win32 and Solaris). I have debugged down into the ssl library and
find that when it fails, it fails in the get_server_hello() function.
The low lev
At 03:54 AM 11/24/99 , you wrote:
>Didn't mean for this to run on so, but it's now the wee hours of
>a holiday eve. I beg your pardon for any pedantic airs that crept in;
>summary histories seem to foster them.
Vin,
Thank you for the excellent SSL history! Though there might be in
Andrew Cooke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> However, it seems to me that it would be better if the verifier had only
> the root CA certificate, and the verifiee supplied not just its
> certificate, but the intermediate certs in the chain. In this way, the
> verifier would not need updating if intermedia
smime.p7m
Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ekr> I don't believe this was the case. The original SSLv3 drafts
> Ekr> did not have DH/DSS/RC4 support. TLSv1 continued this.
> Ekr> The evidence that this was simply a glitch is that
> Ekr> DH_anon _was_ defined with RC4.
>
> I had in mind the
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Bodo Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:40:28AM +, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> > The easiest way to do this is
> > (i) select on readability, and writeability only if there's data waiting
> > to go.
> > (ii) read everything that can read.
> > (iii) grind the SSL s
/ Michael A. Clubine wrote:
| Please advise, as I am slightly confused. Also, I have not yet
| subscribed to this list so please respond directly. Thanks!
I have a fixed rpm package available at
ftp://ftp.sol.no/public/users/a/arneco/linux/>
--
Arne Coucheron | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -
What I've seen is :
"In the U.S., a license is needed to "make, use or sell" RSA. However, RSA
Data Security usually allows free non-commercial use of RSA, with written
permission, for academic or university research purposes."
found at :
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/faq/6-3-1.html
Wh
Hi,
I've been looking around and can't see an answer to this, but if one
exists, please point me to it rather than posting again...
I have been playing with certificate chaining (signing certs that are
signed by a certificate signed by a certificate signed by ... a
self-signed certificate) and
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
If I may ask...which article is this?
-ritesh
-Original Message-
From: Arun Ramachandra 44911 Winding Lane Fremont Ca. 94539 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 November 1999 12:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Another RSApkc Primer
Hi Vin,
Thanks for the article, en
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:58:06AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> When I write networking code, I try to strictly separate protocol
> processing from I/O. That way the caller can use any style of I/O
> he likes -- synchronous, asynchronous, whatever; my protocol code
> doesn't care.
> BIO appear
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 10:40:28AM +, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Bodo Moeller wrote:
>>[...] I'm still not convinced that s_client and s_server
>> are correct w.r.t. handling non-blocking I/O (the problem is that when
>> the peer starts renegotiation, one may have
14 matches
Mail list logo
