Hi all,
I've removed the replies, for shortness. Thank you very much for them,
they have been very enlightning. I think I've found my solution. What I
wanted to do is make sure that the software only runs on a system that
has a smartcard connected to it that the software owner has sent the
custom
Right you are! My mistake.
I knew it was under development but no draft has been issued yet.
Here's a new question.
When OpenSSL got it's NIST algorithm certifications were they only for
specific processors? I notice that the Open Source Software Institute
certs
were done on a HP 9000 whereas ot
> However, when I try to use openssl to decrypt using the corresponding
> RSA-public key, I get:
>
> A private key is needed for this operation
That is how RSA encryption works:
1) There is a public key that you can distribute.
2) There is a private key from which the pu
> First of all I assume that we are talking about FIPS 140-2 [or 3 but
> that's not mandatory anywhere yet].
Mandatory? 140-3 isn't even issued yet. :)
/r$
--
SOA Appliances
Application Integration Middleware
__
OpenS
On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:26 pm, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006, Brad Hards wrote:
> > I'm trying to do detached CMS signatures and verification using the
> > PKCS7_sign() and PKCS7_verify() functions. It appears to work OK, except
> > that my test case for a zero length array
On 4/13/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and
> > build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing
> > clauses.
>
> End users aren't expecte
Title: FIPS module with C++ linking problem
Hello,
I am having an issue that hopefully someone can help with! I am trying to use OpenSSL FIPS (OpenSSL-fips-1.0.tar.gz) and am having difficulty. My program is developing in C++, and this is causing problems with fipsld. I built it on Solaris
Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An end user can download freeradius and postgresql and openssl and
> build all of them and link them together, without violating any licensing
> clauses.
End users aren't expected to know how to use build tools or even
have them installed on th
> For 30 some-odd years nobody had a problem with the BSD's "advert"
> clause in using it's software. Then the GPL came along and insisted
> on FreeBSD changing the license so they could use it - and the
> quid-pro-quo
> was the reason FreeBSD was to do this was that it would get so many
> benefi
Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
You can't because that isn't what the operation is doing. If you perform an
"encrypt" operation with RSA it is encrypting the data using a *public* key.
It accepts a private key but only uses the public key portion of it.
That's what the decrypt operation fails: it need
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006, Brad Hards wrote:
> I'm trying to do detached CMS signatures and verification using the
> PKCS7_sign() and PKCS7_verify() functions. It appears to work OK, except that
> my test case for a zero length array fails to verify() - looks like the
> signature is OK though.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006, Simon de Hartog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a rather complicated situation in the sense that I need to
> realize licensing checks of software. This is done through a config file
> that is signed through a USB smartcard (crypto-token). Next to that, I
> have a symmetric blowfi
Hi,
I have a rather complicated situation in the sense that I need to
realize licensing checks of software. This is done through a config file
that is signed through a USB smartcard (crypto-token). Next to that, I
have a symmetric blowfish key that I need for that. This key has been
encrypted
I'm trying to do detached CMS signatures and verification using the
PKCS7_sign() and PKCS7_verify() functions. It appears to work OK, except that
my test case for a zero length array fails to verify() - looks like the
signature is OK though.
The documentation suggests that PKCS7_verify() isn't
I didn't want to get involved in a licensing discussion here, but there
are some factual errors about "early history" that should be corrected.
The original 'advertising clause' was from the UCal Regents, not FreeBSD
organization et al. They were worried about their name being used
inappropria
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:03:15 -0700 (PDT),
"Sara978 (sent by Nabble.com)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
lists> TEST 5:
lists> bash-3.00$ patch -p1
lists> can't find file to patch at input line 5
lists> Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
lists> The text le
Hello,
> Hi, I have tried to run some test:
Try someting like that:
# file ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz
# head ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz (may see some garbage)
# od -c ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz
to see what this file look like.
Best regards,
--
Marek Marcola <[EMAIL PRO
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kyle Hamilton
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:51 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>On 4/12/06, Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hey I ha
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tyler MacDonald
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:48 PM
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Licenses...
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What I still have
Hi, I have tried to run some test:
TEST 1:
bash-3.00$ gzip -cd ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz
gzip: ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz: not in gzip format
TEST 2:
bash-3.00$ gzip -cd ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz | patch -p1
gzip: ts-20060225-0_9_8a-patch.gz: not in gzip format
TEST 3:
bash-3.00$ gunzi
20 matches
Mail list logo
