Hello Openssl users,
I have a query on d2i_PUBKEY() and i2d_PUBKEY().
i have a EC public key in form of character buffer.
Have inputted this character buffer to d2i_PUBKEY() and got EVP_PKEY format
EC key.
Now i tried to input this EVP_PKEY to i2d_PUBKEY() to compare will i get
exactly same data
> From: openssl-users On Behalf Of Jörg Eyring
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:44
> I'm generating a certificate request and the necessary entries are added
> with:
> ...
> if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,"C", MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned
> char *) CountryName,-1,-1,0))
> X509_NAME_add_ent
The changelog (file CHANGES) in the 1.0.2 tarball contains
some confusingdifferences fromthe one in 1.0.1l.
Specifically:
The 1.0.2 changelog seems to indicate that a few bugs that
were fixed in the 1.0.1 branch were not fixed in the 1.0.2
branch (dtls1_get_record segmentation fault,
dtls1_buffe
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:59:22PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 February 2015 21:46:46 Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:15:36PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > I would like to make the following changes in the cipher specs, in the
> > > master branch, which is pla
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
> Of Salz, Rich
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 13:26
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
> post-1.0.2
>
> > All sorts of things can be done. Clearly
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:46:54PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
> > explicitly in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
> > compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
> > no ad
On 11/02/2015 16:46, Salz, Rich wrote:
I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
explicilty in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
no advantage to moving RC4 to LOW.
Sure
> All sorts of things can be done. Clearly, in the Brave New World of well-
> funded OpenSSL, they'll have to be, because it's apparent that we're going to
> see a lot of disruptive change made on the flimsiest of pretexts, with
> objections from the user community brushed aside. That's your prerog
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
> Of Salz, Rich
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:47
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org; openssl-...@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
> post-1.0.2
>
> > I agree with Vi
> I agree with Viktor. His suggestion (keep RC4 in MEDIUM, suppress it
> explicilty in DEFAULT) is a good one that maintains important backward
> compatibility while providing the desired removal of RC4 by default. There's
> no advantage to moving RC4 to LOW.
Sure there is: it's an accurate descr
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
> Of Viktor Dukhovni
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 21:01
> To: openssl-...@openssl.org; openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] Proposed cipher changes for
> post-1.0.2
>
> On Wed, Feb 11
Sorry, if my post shows up several times - I had some problems with my mail
client ;-)
It was meant to posted only once...
Jörg
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Hi all,
I'm generating a certificate request and the necessary entries are added with:
...
if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,"C", MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned char *)
CountryName,-1,-1,0))
...
if(!X509_NAME_add_entry_by_txt(subj,"O", MBSTRING_ASC, (unsigned char *)
OrganizationName,-1,-1,0))
...
i
13 matches
Mail list logo
