Hello
Does anyone know
whether a Windows Installer Merge Module is available for
OpenSSL?
Thanks,
Jeff
Bowman
I just figured out that client and server works fine if I generate the certificates using openssl tools.The difference between the two certification generation is in AuthorityKeyIdentifier extension in child (client/server) cert.
I have openssl-cert-generator.bat, my-cert-generator.bat. I am using
Noel Sanchez wrote:
Hello Jeffrey, thanks for responding. The firewall is a watchguard box, I
don't think I can install openssl nor stunnel on it. Once the ssl
encrypted data from the devices out in the field reaches my network
(firewall watchguard then forwards ssl traffic) into my linux box ru
Maybe you can try:
http://www.aet.tu-cottbus.de/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=1245
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=335703
This patch may fix the segmentation fault that I also confirm on
openssl-0.9.8a running on linux-2.6.14/686
Some developer should review that patch.
(I'll try it l
Hello Jeffrey, thanks for responding. The firewall is a watchguard box, I
don't think I can install openssl nor stunnel on it. Once the ssl
encrypted data from the devices out in the field reaches my network
(firewall watchguard then forwards ssl traffic) into my linux box running
openssl and stunn
Noel Sanchez wrote:
Hello list. I have ssl capable devices out in the field that need to send
encrypted data to my server in my office. The ssl capable device sends the
encrypted data out to my firewall in the office which in turn forwards the
ssl traffic into my lan to my linux box running open
With RSA, the data to be encrypted is first mapped on to
an integer. For RSA to work, this integer must be smaller than the RSA
modulus used. In order to get things to work the way you want, if you
are using a (say) 1,024-bit RSA modulus, you must split your input data
in chunks 1,024 bits long,
Hi Alain,
> >I would recommend you always watch the warnings. Some C compilers
> >downgrade fairly major problems to "Warnings".
>
> I'm not really familiar with handling void* pointers so I'm
> not sure how alarming these should be.
The first warning seems to be about the callback function b
Hello again and thank you for your replies
I'll probably do it that way too. My threads are defined in another
language and I'm pretty sure there is no way for my C module to be aware of
which user thread it is currently running in... so I have nothing
relevant to call CRYPTO_set_id_cal
Hello again and thank you for your replies
Mark wrote:
I would recommend you always watch the warnings. Some C compilers
downgrade fairly major problems to "Warnings".
I'd recommend the same thing to myself actually. These warnings are
generated by the code in th-lock.c (compiling under
Hello,
I'm trying to write an interface to OpenSSL using BIO pairs. For testing
purposes, I'm doing communication locally in two seperate threads (one
accessing a server context, the other a client context) so I figured I
should worry about thread safety. I read in the OpenSSL documentation
Hi Alain,
There is a good section in the O'Reilly Book about threading. See
Chapter 4.
If you haven't got this book then I will summerize. OpenSSL is thread
safe
only if you implement the static (and dynamic) locking callbacks. You
can find some examples from http://www.opensslbook.com/code.ht
Look at :
http://spipe.sourceforge.net
The idea is to use in your Linux box a patch modified Apache / mod-ssl
server who deciphers all he receives in its 443 port, and if what he obtains
is not HTTP then it forwards the stream of bytes to a selected server. If it
is HTTP, it leaves Apache to mana
13 matches
Mail list logo
