Hello Oli,

I am unable to connect with Mystic and SBBS binkps nodes. I see a couple errors
like this..

verify error:num=66:EE certificate key too weak
verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate
verify error:num=21:unable to verify the first certificate

Is there a way I can lower the requirements of the certificate key or?

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106)

I am unable to connect with Mystic and SBBS binkps nodes. I see a couple errors like this..

verify error:num=66:EE certificate key too weak
verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate
verify error:num=21:unable to verify the first certificate

Is there a way I can lower the requirements of the certificate key or?

Not sure this is the best place to discuss BINKD SSL tunneling, but the issue is likely that it requires a 2048 or higher bit key instead of 1024.

Try adding -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=1" or -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=0" onto your openssl command.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/03/01 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)

Try adding -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=1" or -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=0" onto your openssl command.

It might be -cipher "ALL:@SECLEVEL=0" or maybe 1. Basically you need to step down the security level setting to 1 I think because it now defaults to 2
which is a higher key bit.

I don't really know how the command line openssl stuff works

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/03/01 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)

Hello g00r00,

Not sure this is the best place to discuss BINKD SSL tunneling,

This is the only place that this is being talked about.

I do connect with one of my links running binkd <-> binkd so I know it can work
but more testing is needed between different mailers.

There is no direct support for this in binkd ATM. I have a web server listening
on port 24553 and passing the connection to my running binkd on port 24554 if the handshake passes.

There is a ways to go for binkd if it will support binkps. If I can get a working model happening perhaps that will interest binkd developers.

but the issue is likely that it requires a 2048 or higher bit key
instead of 1024.

I don't mind 1024 or 2048. For now I'd be happy if it'll work. If we can make it work then we can standardize the details as we go.

Try adding -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=1" or -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=0"
onto your openssl command.

Thanks, I'll give this a go here in a few minites.

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106)

Hello g00r00,

It might be -cipher "ALL:@SECLEVEL=0" or maybe 1. Basically you need
to step down the security level setting to 1 I think because it now defaults to 2 which is a higher key bit.

-cipher "ALL:@SECLEVEL=0" did the trick, thanks. I'm going to try =1 and 2 also
just to see what I get.

I don't really know how the command line openssl stuff works

Neither do I actually, I'm just bangin' away on my keyboard!

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106)

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:09:11 +0700
"g00r00 -> Al" <0@108.1.21> wrote:

I am unable to connect with Mystic and SBBS binkps nodes. I see
a couple errors like this..

verify error:num=66:EE certificate key too weak
verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate
verify error:num=21:unable to verify the first certificate

Is there a way I can lower the requirements of the certificate
key or?

Not sure this is the best place to discuss BINKD SSL tunneling, but
the issue is likely that it requires a 2048 or higher bit key instead
of 1024.

Try adding -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=1" or -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=0"
onto your openssl command.

This has nothing to do with binkd ssl "tunneling". Is Mystic (and binkit) using
a weak certificate by default? Nobody uses 1024 bit keys anymore.

---
* Origin: REPLY (21:1/151)

This has nothing to do with binkd ssl "tunneling". Is Mystic (and
binkit) using a weak certificate by default? Nobody uses 1024 bit keys anymore.

Gee, I instantly knew the issue, explained it to Al and gave him a command
line to get it working. Its almost like I'm not wrong and I understand what
is going on.

And its almost like you read through the messages and then came back with
this garbage. Seriously, you need to stop with your nonsense here. The
number of people who've told you about it now is literally in the double digits.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/03/02 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:45:57 +0100
"Oli -> g00r00" <0@151.1.21> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 02:09:11 +0700
"g00r00 -> Al" <0@108.1.21> wrote:

I am unable to connect with Mystic and SBBS binkps nodes. I see
a couple errors like this..

verify error:num=66:EE certificate key too weak
verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate
verify error:num=21:unable to verify the first certificate

Is there a way I can lower the requirements of the certificate
key or?

Not sure this is the best place to discuss BINKD SSL tunneling,
but the issue is likely that it requires a 2048 or higher bit
key instead of 1024.

Try adding -cipher "ADH:@SECLEVEL=1" or -cipher
"ADH:@SECLEVEL=0" onto your openssl command.

This has nothing to do with binkd ssl "tunneling". Is Mystic (and
binkit) using a weak certificate by default? Nobody uses 1024 bit
keys anymore.

I just read you already updated the default to 2048. Nice :)

---
* Origin: REPLY (21:1/151)

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:48:07 +0700
"g00r00 -> Oli" <0@108.1.21> wrote:

This has nothing to do with binkd ssl "tunneling". Is Mystic
(and binkit) using a weak certificate by default? Nobody uses
1024 bit keys anymore.

Gee, I instantly knew the issue, explained it to Al and gave him a
command line to get it working. Its almost like I'm not wrong and I understand what is going on.

We are running binkd with TLS for months now without any problems and now Mystics catched up and everyone should implement workarounds?

Yeah, never any fault in your marvelous Mystic software, every other software is wrong, because the Guru is always right. Let's insult the messenger, if they
report a problem...

---
* Origin: REPLY (21:1/151)