Tomáš Mráz
Tomáš Mráz
> I spent some time trying to reverse engineer the content of test/certs and the other subcomponents of the test/ directory. Is there any README I have missed? I suppose...
Merged to master branch. Thank you for your contribution!
You would need `SECLEVEL=0` as TLS1.1/1.0 requires SHA1 signatures.
I still wonder whether all this effort is worth it. Would it make more sense `no-tls1_2 no-tls1_3` to imply no-tls? I.E. enable only DTLS? Honestly I cannot imagine a valid...
IMO this is 4.0 feature.
Please note that 1.0.2 version is out of support for a long time (except for premium support customers).
This cannot be merged to stable branches because code cleanups are not allowed there. The missingcrypto111.txt should not be touched. If you want the doc fixes on stable branches, please...
> Likely I'll set up a PR that fixes the doc for 1.1.1 - there `missingcrypto111.txt` should be updated, right? > I'm not sure it's worth having a 3rd PR...
I read this proposal as applying to signatures only. Which is IMO reasonable as signatures are vulnerable to collision attacks where most of the other uses aren't and should be...
> Rebased and updated now that the API is merged. > > As with the other PR, unsure what's going on with doc-nits. This PR doesn't change the file it's...