Message from discussion
OpenSSL minimum version for saml2cpp?
Received: by 10.115.109.14 with SMTP id l14mr1009363wam.29.1234738653404;
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <s.mangelsd...@gmail.com>
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.242])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m37si1900045waf.2.2009.02.15.14.57.32;
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:57:32 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of s.mangelsd...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.242 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.198.242;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of s.mangelsd...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.242 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=s.mangelsd...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so1589613rvb.54
for <esoe-dev@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:57:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=E1rfkpQ4FGa+Zb1ptfok8kln8/HuOkhnnJzt0MV2eUQ=;
b=iLXIbmR9aEfmTVIkM2p8BsFrRAbJRkGrdVrWb1287en2Pmu6K1ZBRxlAgXKraAYxPE
e4biAWbA/e1ZjMOw2Yyy2xszo9UAyJOO/DLZa5hN/7OMCXY+pqBvgpKEnBLM0l7ZG8k8
J2xFeWQysXJbUZsM6TMQY0dKEmHZ7I66MH8XY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
b=gU7d03asHKoqNeKWANH0K0EgITXmWXIgotxgrlKDhGVogfZJ26SsI2MCr2O2rWyXxV
hrK3fCUj2fKP+n2ApFZTjVvRtth6COaB4V1XvXtW2SyzWbS3jBVDEe7/4YG7FbseRUfo
0Y5wI2fmpRrYkgp1CUepzl3kryS5mNcBPoGjg=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="000e0cd17220bb0d290462fcfe1c"
Received: by 10.141.142.15 with SMTP id u15mr2364998rvn.16.1234738651794; Sun,
15 Feb 2009 14:57:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <139D1F17-EF44-4A05-BA7F-EA49CCAF96BB@intient.com>
References: <c68f7aa2-4676-48ff-929b-fac64ee26111@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<139D1F17-EF44-4A05-BA7F-EA49CCAF9...@intient.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:57:31 +1000
Message-ID: <90ad28f40902151457o316b7f48t37ad77ef4cecc...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [esoe-dev] Re: OpenSSL minimum version for saml2cpp?
From: Shaun Mangelsdorf <s.mangelsd...@gmail.com>
To: esoe-dev@googlegroups.com
--000e0cd17220bb0d290462fcfe1c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi all,
I can clarify a little here. We developed against a 0.9.8 version (the
specific version escapes me, but 0.9.8e sounds about right). We currently
have a production SPEP running on Redhat 4 which uses 0.9.7a (not sure if
this has Redhat-specific patches).. So at the least, it is API-compatible
with that version.
As Bradley mentioned, the later the better. I wouldn't be keen on fixing any
bugs that were caused by earlier versions of OpenSSL than 0.9.7.
Regards,
Shaun
2009/2/15 Bradley Beddoes <bedd...@intient.com>
>
>
> Hi,
> I believe the minimum was 0.9.8e but the later the better.
>
> It depends on it in a number of ways the most important being:
>
> signature / document verification on unmarshaling
> signature generation for marshaling
> key verification for metadata extraction
> various load/store routines for keys
>
> regards
> Bradley
>
> On 14/02/2009, at 6:14 PM, Luke Daley wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Anyone know what the minimum version of OpenSSL that ESOE supports is?
> >
> > Out of interest, how is saml2cpp depending on OpenSSL?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > LD.
> > >
>
> Bradley Beddoes
> Lead Software Architect
> Intient Pty Ltd
>
> Twitter: @bradleybeddoes
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--000e0cd17220bb0d290462fcfe1c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,<br><br>I can clarify a little here. We developed against a 0.9.8 ve=
rsion (the specific version escapes me, but 0.9.8e sounds about right). We =
currently have a production SPEP running on Redhat 4 which uses 0.9.7a (not=
sure if this has Redhat-specific patches).. So at the least, it is API-com=
patible with that version.<br>
<br>As Bradley mentioned, the later the better. I wouldn't be keen on f=
ixing any bugs that were caused by earlier versions of OpenSSL than 0.9.7.<=
br><br>Regards,<br>Shaun<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/2/15 Bradle=
y Beddoes <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bedd...@intient.com">bedd=
o...@intient.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
I believe the minimum was 0.9.8e but the later the better.<br>
<br>
It depends on it in a number of ways the most important being:<br>
<br>
signature / document verification on unmarshaling<br>
signature generation for marshaling<br>
key verification for metadata extraction<br>
various load/store routines for keys<br>
<br>
regards<br>
Bradley<br>
<div class=3D"Ih2E3d"><br>
On 14/02/2009, at 6:14 PM, Luke Daley wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> Hey guys,<br>
><br>
> Anyone know what the minimum version of OpenSSL that ESOE supports is?=
<br>
><br>
> Out of interest, how is saml2cpp depending on OpenSSL?<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> LD.<br>
> ><br>
<br>
</div>Bradley Beddoes<br>
Lead Software Architect<br>
Intient Pty Ltd<br>
<br>
Twitter: @bradleybeddoes<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--000e0cd17220bb0d290462fcfe1c--
|
