> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Rebey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Cipher question...
>
>
>
> Even if all 64 bytes in my seed array are the same, (say for instance
> 0x03F567A2) isn't
> 0x03F567A203
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 01:51:34PM -0400, Bill Rebey wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. Like I said, I knew the array would probably
> contain 64 instances of the same values, but I didn't know it was so
> terrible, largely because I don't even understand what the big pool of data
> is really
Thanks for pointing this out. Like I said, I knew the array would probably
contain 64 instances of the same values, but I didn't know it was so
terrible, largely because I don't even understand what the big pool of data
is really used for.
You seem to have some legitimate insight into the random
This is on a WIN2000 server using VC++6.0. Eventually the server side will
be multi-threaded, that's why the Mutex setup. Any help is appreciated.
BTW - I'm also encountering Memory leaks so if anyone has any suggestions
along those lines I could use them.
Server side Error:
1832:error:1408F10B
Bill Rebey wrote:
... an broken snake oil random generator.
> Start by running something like this before you do other SSL stuff:
> time_t seed[64];
> for (int ii = 0; ii < 64; ii++)
> {
> time_t t = time (NULL);
>
> I send a message some time-stamping authority, containing the
> signature and the date and time at which I pretend to sign it; this
> authority will then sign this message with it's own certificate adding the
> date and time at which it signed it.
Peter Sylvester talked about this a day
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Suspending" certificate
>
>
> From: Yuji Shinozaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ys2n> Hmmm. Doesn't this ge
Start by running something like this before you do other SSL stuff:
time_t seed[64];
for (int ii = 0; ii < 64; ii++)
{
time_t t = time (NULL);
seed[ii] = t;
}
RAND_seed (
Hello,
I'm getting errors of the following sort
between my client and the s_server
running under the openssl app...
(Note: Using latest OpenSSL 0.95a on a
SPARCstation 5 running Solaris 2.6).
15894:error:24064064:random number generator:SSLEAY_RAND_BYTES:PRNG not seeded:m
d_rand.c:538:
1589
In case this addresses the question, I installed MD5 and shadow passwords
on a GNU/Linux system (RH6.1) with an existing user base and short
'crypt' passwords. It was totally painless.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, John Hartnup wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:47:54AM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> > > s
Hi all,
I have two problems and could use some help.
First problem: I am doing client authentication. It all works fine, until
a client sends a bad certificate that is rejected by my server. After that
point, my server can't accept any more connections. Every connection
attempt - regardles
Hi.
Im trying to get OpenSSL working on two systems running Compaq Tru64 UNIX
5.0. The systems are a DEC Alphaserver 4100 with 1 300mhz proc and 512MB
RAM, and a DEC Alphaserver 800 with a 533 proc and 128MB of RAM. On both
systems, when i run make to build OpenSSL, it fails saying "not enough
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:47:54AM -0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> > sql table. I need to initialize the user/passwd data base with the
> > existing data from my current /etc/passwd file (linux).
>
> No can do. The password file format is one-way. You cannot recover the
> password from the password
> sql table. I need to initialize the user/passwd data base with the
> existing data from my current /etc/passwd file (linux).
No can do. The password file format is one-way. You cannot recover the
password from the password file.
/r$
___
Trying to connect to my OpenSSL enabled server from IE, and Netscape
is failing in s3_pkt.c(249) with an SSL_R_WRONG_VERSION_NUMBER.
The version numbers being sent down from IE, and Netscape are
40.1, and 43.1 respectively.
Anyone know why this is happening?
TIA
--
==
Mads Toftum wrote:
> Does that make sense? If I were to compromise a cert at some point in time,
> there would be nothing (except timestamping) that would keep me from
> signing something as if it had been signed in the past.
>
> And the shortcut here would be timestamping - handled by someone els
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 07:34:53AM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
>
> Funny you should mentino this. It was taken up on the ietf-pkix list
> just a few days ago, and I think someone concluded that a signature
> would always be valid if corresponding to a cert that has once been
> va
17 matches
Mail list logo
