[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.1 and static DH

To: <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.1 and static DH
From: EKR <ekr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:05:34 -0700
Cc: tls@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F2403500ADA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Pasi Eronen's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:28:53 +0300")
List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F2403500ADA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: EKR <ekr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (berkeley-unix)

<Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> cryptlib definitely doesn't do static DH... in fact does anything?
>> Why would anyone do it at all, for that matter?
>
> Based on a quick look at the source code, at least OpenSSL, Mozilla
> NSS, and PureTLS appear to support static DH. 

I'm pretty sure that it hasn't been tested in PureTLS.

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

References:
- RE: [TLS] TLS 1.1 and static DH
  - From: Pasi.Eronen

Prev by Date: Re: [TLS] Open issue: Record Version Numbers
Next by Date: RE: [TLS] Open issue: Record Version Numbers
Previous by thread: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.1 and static DH
Next by thread: [TLS] Open Issue: verify_data processing
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread