On 2009-07-22 06:09 PDT, nk wrote:
>> Is there any way I can reproduce what you're seeing?
>> I would probably require me to be able to access your CA server,
>> and perhaps also to trust your root cert for the test.
>
> There is no CA server involved at this point. All I am doing is
> supplying
> >> That does seem strange. We have a [2] explicitly encoding a [0] which
> >> is an implicit bit string with no unused bits, apparently encapsulating
> >> another bit string of length zero. :-/
> > I have now modified our decoder to correctly recognize POPOPrivKey
> > encoded as thisMessage, i.
On 2009-07-20 05:17 PDT, Nikolai wrote:
> I can see what you mean about explicit vs implicit tagging and have
> now modified our decoder to lookup the context of the ASN1Object to
> see if the value was tagged explicitly or implicitly and rely on the
> context to implicitly decode to a particular
Hi Nelson,
On Jul 18, 2:48 am, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> On 2009-07-17 17:40 PDT, Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> > Moving discussion to mozilla.dev.tech.crypto, but do go ahead and file
> > bugs. I doubt 3.5 behaves any differently than 3.0 (you did mean 3.0.10,
> > right? If you're using Firefox 2 ple
On 2009-07-17 17:40 PDT, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> Moving discussion to mozilla.dev.tech.crypto, but do go ahead and file
> bugs. I doubt 3.5 behaves any differently than 3.0 (you did mean 3.0.10,
> right? If you're using Firefox 2 please stop).
> nk wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am researching the window.c
Moving discussion to mozilla.dev.tech.crypto, but do go ahead and file
bugs. I doubt 3.5 behaves any differently than 3.0 (you did mean 3.0.10,
right? If you're using Firefox 2 please stop).
nk wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am researching the window.crypto.generatedCRMFRequest() function
> available on Fir
6 matches
Mail list logo
