> From: Steven_M.irc
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2022 21:21
> > This is not true in the general case. There are applications which are
> > available on Linux which do not use the
> > distribution's package manager. There are applications which use their own
> > OpenSSL build, possibly link
Steven_M.irc via openssl-users wrote:
> Hi Michael, Thanks very much for replying to my e-mail/post. I
> apologize for the lateness of my reply.
>> This is not true in the general case. There are applications which are
>> available on Linux which do not use the distribution's pack
On Friday, 25 November 2022 05:21:00 CET, Steven_M.irc via openssl-users
wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks very much for replying to my e-mail/post. I apologize
for the lateness of my reply.
This is not true in the general case. There are applications
which are available on Linux which do not use the
ers-boun...@openssl.org On Behalf Of Michael
>
> Wojcik via openssl-users
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 4:18 PM
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: Upgrading OpenSSL on Windows 10
>
> > From: openssl-users openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org on behalf of
&
Hi Michael,
Thanks very much for replying to my e-mail/post. I apologize for the lateness
of my reply.
> This is not true in the general case. There are applications which are
> available on Linux which do not use the distribution's package manager. There
> are applications which use their own
enssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: Re: Upgrading OpenSSL on Windows 10
> From: openssl-users on behalf of
> Steven_M.irc via openssl-users
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 15:56
> However, I am running Windows 10, and since (unlike Linux) every piece
> of software outside of Win
> From: openssl-users on behalf of
> Steven_M.irc via openssl-users
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 15:56
> However, I am running Windows 10, and since (unlike Linux) every piece of
> software outside of Windows itself
> needs to be updated individually, I don't know how to track down every
On 13/11/2019 09:22, Umamaheswari Nagarajan wrote:
> The following apis seems to be unavailable or modified in 1.1.1c,
>
> ENGINE_cleanup
This still exists, but was converted from a function to a macro that
does nothing. You no longer need to call it. OpenSSL 1.1.0+ cleans
itself up automatica
On Tuesday, 2 April 2019 15:02:29 CEST Srinivasan T wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Recently we have upgraded to CentOS 7.6.1810 and the OpenSSL comes along
> with CentOS 7.6 is openssl-1.0.2k-16.el7_6.1.x86_64. We understand there
> are no updates available / backported in CentOS 7.6 mirrors beyond
> opens
> In openssl-1.0.1/fips-2.0 it is not possible to call the low-level APIs when
> in FIPS 140-2 mode. Is there another alternative that I can use? E.g. some
> API in the FIPS module?
Sorry, no.
--
Principal Security Engineer, Akamai Technologies
IM: rs...@jabber.me Twitter: RichSalz
Thanks Luke appreciate the feedback!!
Brad Finkeldei
Luke Carpenter
Sent by: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org
04/24/2012 02:36 PM
Please respond to
openssl-users@openssl.org
To
openssl-users@openssl.org
cc
Subject
Re: Upgrading OPENSSL
I would not advise attempting that, Apache is
I would not advise attempting that, Apache is compiled against a version of
OpenSSL, and simply swapping out the binaries Indiana-Jones style will
probably land you with a segfault
>From a preliminary search, it looks like you will need to re-compile the
Apache module mod_ssl against a later versi
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:31:40PM -0500, josh kirbey wrote:
> Thanks Viktor for your quick response. Even I am contesting the unnecessary
> usage of 3072 bit sized key.
>
> Surprisingly, in the given scenario, if I write this line of code before
> modifying the certificate it works like a charm.
Thanks Viktor for your quick response. Even I am contesting the unnecessary
usage of 3072 bit sized key.
Surprisingly, in the given scenario, if I write this line of code before
modifying the certificate it works like a charm.
pkcs7 = PKCS7_dup(pkcs7);
Below is the flow of APIs
1) pkcs7 = PKCS7_d
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:42:14AM -0500, josh kirbey wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are required to upgrade the sizes of private/public key pairs to 3072
> bits from 1024 bits.
Welcome to bureaucratic insanity. There is no rational basis for
this requirement. Even 2048 bits is excessively conservative
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
The 1.2.0-test tarball IS NOT FIPS VALIDATED. You cannot make a
FIPS-validated module from it.
...
The 1.2.0-test tarball can be used to test the functionality of the
fully-validated 1.2.0 module, thus making it possible to build and
test and debug your application -- but
The 1.2.0-test tarball IS NOT FIPS VALIDATED. You cannot make a
FIPS-validated module from it.
When the 1.2.0 validation occurs, it will be announced here, the
certificate will be posted on the NIST's website, the full validated
tarball will be made available, and the certificate's Administration
thanx a lot and it worked but when i generated the HMAC-SHA-1 hash its
different from the one given in the security policy document .actually i
have installed the openssl-fips-test-1.2.0 and the security policy document
"OPENSSL FIPS 140-2 Secuirty Policy versin 1.1.2" Appendix B shows valu
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008, rabail javed wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> I have installed the openssl-fips-test-1.2.0 using the following commands
>
> ./config fipscanisterbuild
> make
> make install
>
>
> and the libraray is installed in the /usr/local/ssl and i have generated
> tehe fipscanister.o, fipscaniste
>
>
> The "make depend" is only required if options selected during config
> require it. A message will appear at the end of the config if it is needed.
>
>
>
> Bill
> --
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *rabail
.
Bill
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rabail javed
Sent: June 27, 2008 9:53 AM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Cc: James Erskine; Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Subject: Re: upgrading openssl 0.9.8b to openssl-fips-1.1.1
Thanx a lot Bill, but if i wou
Thanx a lot Bill, but if i would install openssl-fips-1.1.2 , do i need
0.9.7m with it.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Bill Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Rabail: openssl-fips-1.1.1 is a 0.9.7 based version of openssl.
> Therefore, you will be downgrading your 0.9.8b version if you choos
Rabail: openssl-fips-1.1.1 is a 0.9.7 based version of openssl.
Therefore, you will be downgrading your 0.9.8b version if you choose to
do this.
Also, you should be using openssl-fips-1.1.2 now not openssl-fips-1.1.1
as it has fixed a minor problem with the earlier version. You may want
to co
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Evolution isn't true just because the majority of people think it is.
> -Original Message-
> From: Francisco Javier Martinez Martinez
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 June 2003 14:38
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Upgrading to the
the majority of people think it is.
> -Original Message-
> From: Francisco Javier Martinez Martinez
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 14:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Upgrading to the lastest version, what happends with my
> Apach e-Mod_SSL?
>
Sorry for disturbing you, but I was in a mistake with the version of Linux,
my client had a Redhat 6.2 I had realized this because there is not
libssl.so.0.9.6xx in the files system, there is /usr/local/ssl/lib/libssl.a
instead, this may indicate that the openssl is not built in share mode?,
The
If I had a Euro for each time this question gets asked...
The openssl FAQ details that fact the Red Hat 7.x (onwards) uses backported
versions. That is, if you have installed the Red Hat update to your version
(either manually or using Red Hat Network at rhn.redhat.com) you are
protected from curr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:42:08 -0500, Vinson Armstead -
PA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Vinson_Armstead> Also, what is the difference between the "engine" and
Vinson_Armstead> "non-engine" source and which do I need?
The "engine" variant of the 0.9.6 series supports ext
Title: RE: upgrading from 0.9.6b to 0.9.7a & 0.9.6i engine
Thanks for the reply
Also, what is the difference between the "engine" and "non-engine" source and which do I need?
thanks again
Vinson
-Original Message-
From: Richard Levitte - VM
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:24:10 -0500, Vinson Armstead -
PA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Vinson_Armstead> I need some suggestions for upgrading from 9.6b to
Vinson_Armstead> the latest/greatest version of OpenSSL.
Vinson_Armstead>
Vinson_Armstead> Do I just need 9.7a or
But John...it will break them *how*? What are the error messages? I mean,
it *really* works for me. The OpenSSL site being down, I take the liberty
to quote the FAQ for 0.9.7:
> What is special about OpenSSL on Redhat?
> Red Hat Linux (release 7.0 and later) include a preinstalled limited
> vers
Oops! I made a mistake with part 2.
2. I'm not familiar with that package, but it probably doesn't fix the
recent Linux Slapper worm. Have a look at the package info with "rpm -qip
openssl-0.9.6c-2.i386". If the build date is before 30th July 2002 it won't.
That is the date of release of openssl-
There are two parts to my reply.
1. The rawhide packages aren't officially supported by RedHat and will
probably break your other packages. I've used them before but not where
there have been dependencies.
2. I'm not familiar with that package, but it probably doesn't fix the
recent Linux Slapper
sr/local/ssl. I configure with..
./Configure shared threads linux-elf
make
make install
Be sure to configure with shared threads
- Original Message -
From: "Glynn S. Condez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:55 AM
Subject: Re:
?
glynn
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Upgrading openssl
> Thanks. Makes sense. That's been on my mind for quite some time.
>
pt.so.1 => /lib/libcrypt.so.1 (0x40043000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x4200)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000)
__SNIP__
- Original Message -
From: "Mark H. Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tu
I just checked, and here Apache and OpenSSH both link to the shared
OpenSSL libraries. If yours were also linked with the shared libraries,
then a new patch release should just drop in. You'll need to exit and
restart sshd and httpd before they'll start using the new libraries,
though.
If you h
37 matches
Mail list logo
