:21:27PM +0100, Olivier Germain via
> openssl-users wrote:
>
> > We have a requirement to implement the Distinguished Name in the
> response
> > received by the client. Hopefully I am ok.
>
> More accurately, you're being asked to send a suitable non-empty list o
您好，您的邮件我已收到，我会尽快阅读，谢谢！
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 05:21:27PM +0100, Olivier Germain via openssl-users
wrote:
> We have a requirement to implement the Distinguished Name in the response
> received by the client. Hopefully I am ok.
More accurately, you're being asked to send a suitable non-empty list of
&qu
Good afternoon,
I am new in Openssl, SSL. So please excuse my poor knowledge.
We are using Openssl 1.0.2j as a 3rdparty in our software to establish SSL
connection. We can be a server and/or a client.
We have a requirement to implement the Distinguished Name in the response
received by the clie
On 02/10/2015 16:20, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
So I am wondering what the officially correct behavior is
when verifying such a case. Should the
SignerInfo.issuerAndSerialNumber.issuer be treated as
matching or as not matching a certificate in which an
otherwise identical string is tagged differently
> So I am wondering what the officially correct behavior is
> when verifying such a case. Should the
> SignerInfo.issuerAndSerialNumber.issuer be treated as
> matching or as not matching a certificate in which an
> otherwise identical string is tagged differently but
> represents the same textual
Dear list,
I have encountered a behavior difference between the CMS
routines in OpenSSL and the equivalent functionality in
another CMS implementation, and I wonder which is the
correct behavior.
I was examining a CMS signature made by someone else and
found that some implementations accepted it
Ording is important. unfortunately the default order shown in the textual
form is not the same as for ldap tools. using openssl asn1parse shows
the encoding, country code should come first.
__
OpenSSL Project
Since you need authoritative elements, start by downloading and reading
authoritative documents (all are freely available from ITU-T website).
X.509, section 7:
-
[...]
The issuer and subject fields of each certificate are used, in part, to
identify a valid path. For each pair of adjacent c
I think either you mis-read the web page, or the author is confused.
Looking at RFC 2253, it quotes X.501 which says:
DistinguishedName ::= RDNSequence
RDNSequence ::= SEQUENCE OF RelativeDistinguishedName
RelativeDistinguishedName ::= SET SIZE (1..MAX) OF
AttributeTypeAndValue
AttributeTypeAndVal
Dear All,
I am working on an embedded product which has the OpenSSL 0.9.8w library and
acts as a client.
It is communicating with another product which has the OpenSSL 0.9.8e library
and acts as a server.
A customer has supplied the client certificate for the server and the
associated root CA t
Hi all,
I trying to decode the issuer and subject of X509 certs into distinguished
names.
Mainly I'm doing this:
e = X509_NAME_get_entry(x->cert_info->issuer, i);
int nid = OBJ_obj2nid(e->object);
switch(nid)
I think there must be a better
12 matches
Mail list logo
