Hi All,
FYI, per Shebu, I'm adding both mbed-tls(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org and
psa-crypto(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org to the MBed TLS Tech Forum invites.
Please look for this in your inbox and accept it if you would like the
series added to your calendar.
- Note that this is a monthly meeting but you will see two invites, one
that is for Asia timezones and one for Europe/US. Just delete the series
that isn't timezone friendly for you.
- FYI, recall that this and other tech forums can be found in the meeting
calendar on the TF website <https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/>.
If you see a meeting in that calendar, click on the entry and an option
comes up saying "copy to my calendar." It will import that single instance
into your personal calendar from there if you wish. I wasn't able to test
this feature with outlook, but it worked fine for google calendar.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Don Harbin
TrustedFirmware Community Manager
don.harbin(a)linaro.org
Hello!
OpenVPN can be compiled with OpenSSL or mbedtls. However, OpenVPN is licensed under GPLv2 only. If I understand correctly, that means it is not legal to distribute binaries of OpenVPN that are linked with mbedtls 2.17 or later.
At Fox Crypto, we produce a hardened version of OpenVPN, called OpenVPN-NL, for use by the Dutch government, which uses mbedtls. (The latest release is rather old and still uses 2.16.)
Is there anyone I could ask about making an exception for linking OpenVPN with mbedtls?
Regards,
Max Fillinger
Hello,
I want to test/analyze the performance increase of using tinycrypt for ECC operations instead of the standard MbedTLS ECC functions. Could you please help me with a few answers regarding this?
I am aware that tinycrypt is already integrated in the baremetal branch. Do you happen to know what is the performance increase of using this tinycrypt uECC implementation instead of the standard one on arm cortex m4 microcontrollers?
I would like to port the tinycrypt uECC changes from baremetal branch to a Mbed TLS 2.25.0 version used in Matter repo (from where Mbed TLS repo is refered), more exactly this commit: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/tree/1c54b5410fd48d6bcada97e30cac417c5c7…
What do you think is the best approach? I thought of forking Mbed TLS, creating a separate branch with that commit and adding there the tinycrypt changes from baremetal branch. However, I'm not sure how to proceed next since the Matter repo refers the MbedTLS repo. Is this approach ok?
Thank you!
Hi,
I have completed my job on these topics so I would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list, can you help me?
Thank you!
Michele
[cid:image001.png@01D7FCCB.D711FD40]
Hillrom is now a part of Baxter
Michele Innocenti
Sr Principal Engineer, SW Eng
Gambro Dasco S.p.A.
Via Modenese 66 / 41036 Medolla, Modena, Italy
T. +39 0535.50578
michele_innocenti(a)baxter.com<mailto:michele_innocenti@baxter.com>
Dear all,
mbedtls 3.x is incompatible with mbedtls 2.x so the transition of all
the packages using mbedtls will take a long time. However, from my
understanding, it is not possible to install both versions side by
side as a lot of headers are common to both versions and installed in
include/mbedtls.
This fact is raising concern on buildroot side, see:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/patch/20211228153345.4087026…
Can you confirm that a side-by-side installation of both mbedtls versions
is not possible and/or can you share some inputs on this topic?
Best Regards,
Fabrice
