Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

I've tried with no success. Broadcom doesn't like to talk to anybody who isn't buying 1000+ parts. They simply refer to distributors that have no knowledge of the products. I'd love to get my hands on a PCI board that has a BCM582x or BCM584x chip on it, but I have no idea if such a beast exi

Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

Good question... I've interacted with Broadcom directly on various occasions through my work with openCryptoki. Have you tried contacting them through their web site... Scott Johnson wrote: Do you know of a source for the Broadcom adapters? -Scott At 08:28 AM 1/30/2003, you wrote: Aleix

Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

Do you know of a source for the Broadcom adapters? -Scott At 08:28 AM 1/30/2003, you wrote: Aleix Not to open the hardware is better than software can of worms... If you are looking for RAW crypto performance from hardware the nFast is really not IMO the way to go... Just as the IBM 4758 wou

Re: smime verification problem

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003, Gerd Schering wrote: > Hi, > > I use the smime utility to sign a message and output it in PEM format: > > openssl smime -sign -in req.csr -outform PEM -out mail.pem -signer \ > mycert.pem -inkey mykey.pem > > When trying to verify it, I get a failure: > > openssl smime -

Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

* Aleix Conchillo Flaque ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > i was thinking the same thing yesterday morning: if you need your CPU to > do other things, the cryptographic hardware can help you. the problem is > when you only need cryptographic results in a real-time large process > (let's say talling v

smime verification problem

Hi, I use the smime utility to sign a message and output it in PEM format: openssl smime -sign -in req.csr -outform PEM -out mail.pem -signer \ mycert.pem -inkey mykey.pem When trying to verify it, I get a failure: openssl smime -verify -inform PEM -in mail.pem -CAfile CAstore Verification fa

Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

Aleix Conchillo Flaque wrote: hi, well, first of all, let me thank you for the mail again. i was thinking the same thing yesterday morning: if you need your CPU to do other things, the cryptographic hardware can help you. the problem is when you only need cryptographic results in a real-time l

RE: renegotiation in 0.9.7

> To guess what is going on, I'd have to know > > - whether your application is operating as a client or a server > (an SSL/TLS client apparently) and yep, it's a client. is the renegotiation code different for a client than for a server ? > > - what protocol version is used. > > SSL 2.0 do

Re: renegotiation in 0.9.7

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:41:08AM -, Nigel Spowage wrote: > my client app calls SSL_renegotiate() and gets a return value of 1 > (success i presume, as i cann't find a man page for this > function). this sets up internal flags in ssl ready to negotiate the > connection. > > i call SSL_do_han

Re: CRL checking prior to 0.9.7.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003, Greaney, Kevin wrote: > > Hi, > I noticed in the 0.9.7 announcement > (www.openssl.org/news/announce.html) > the following bullet: > - CRL checking in verify code and openssl utility. > I know I can check a certificate against a CA, but how would > one check

CRL checking prior to 0.9.7.

Title: CRL checking prior to 0.9.7.  Hi,     I noticed in the 0.9.7 announcement (www.openssl.org/news/announce.html)  the following bullet:     - CRL checking in verify code and openssl utility.  I know I can check a certificate against a CA, but how would  one check a certific

RE: renegotiation in 0.9.7

sorry to drag this out, but i'm still confused by the results i'm getting. i'm using non-blocking io, and everything is working fine in that respect. i would like my application to re-negotiate the connection after x number of bytes have been transmitted, and for it to close the connection if th

Re: engine's performance (what's wrong?)

hi, well, first of all, let me thank you for the mail again. i was thinking the same thing yesterday morning: if you need your CPU to do other things, the cryptographic hardware can help you. the problem is when you only need cryptographic results in a real-time large process (let's say talling