On Aug 27, 4:30 pm, John Dennis wrote:
> On 08/27/2010 06:36 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
> > secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
>
> > Rather than the normal case of a client c
On 08/27/2010 06:36 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
Hi all,
In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the
user, and just added to the certific
I propose that we remove SSL 2.0 support from the NSS
trunk (NSS 3.13).
SSL 2.0 is an old and insecure protocol. No products
should be using SSL 2.0 today. But removing the SSL
2.0 code from NSS has one major benefit to the continual
development of NSS's SSL library: it'll make the code
base eas
Hi all,
In our (mozilla/xulrunner-based) application, we're trying to set up a
secure connection to a server that requires a client certificate.
Rather than the normal case of a client certificate belonging to the
user, and just added to the certificate store, we want to have a
certificate that n
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> In accepting patches to implement TLS 1.2 and/or AES-GCM cipher suites, is a
> (potentially-)FIPS-140-compliant implementation required? Or, would it be
> acceptable in the short-term to have an implementation that is known to be
> non-complian
In accepting patches to implement TLS 1.2 and/or AES-GCM cipher suites, is a
(potentially-)FIPS-140-compliant implementation required? Or, would it be
acceptable in the short-term to have an implementation that is known to be
non-compliant and thus disabled in FIPS mode?
The main issue regardin
Konstantin Andreev wrote:
> On 08/03/10 19:13, Brian Smith wrote:
> > I think I found a problem with the GCM interface that seems
> > to make it impossible to use the PKCS#11 interface in a
FIPS-140-compliant
> > manner. In particular, NIST SP800-38D requires that the IV for the GCM
mode be
> > gen
Hi,
I haven't hear any direct quotes but the coolkey folks may be interested as
well.
I agree, but not sure a new project is warranted. A subbranch of the nss
codebase perhaps? No need to fragment the community just because a new
architecture comes into play.
On 2010/08/26 01:02 PDT, fishjohn wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Hope this forum is ok for such question.
Yes.
> We have simple "lists" implemented through /etc/aliases . basically
> I want to send encrypted mail to l...@example.com ( which is alias
> for person1, person2, ...)
A common desire.
> Is ther
9 matches
Mail list logo
