<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3EDE5328.7040904@netscape.com">
However, the very idea behind making this change is to eliminate the<br>
"unhygenic" practice of using private keys in the clear... <br>
</blockquote>
I don't see big difference between using private key in clear and
private <br>
key in pkcs8 file with no password or with "password" password. If
someone<br>
do not understand what is s/he doing then someone always find a way to
screw up<br>
him/herself :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3EDE5328.7040904@netscape.com"> But if
you insist....<br>
</blockquote>
I insist on keeping xmlsec backward compatible now. I don't know who use<br>
and what kind of scripts are based on a fact that "--privkey-der" loads
a clear<br>
text private key. Changing the library/utility behaiviour w/o warning
seems<br>
wrong to me. And for me, the issue does not seem important enough to go <br>
to xmlsec 2.0 :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3EDE5328.7040904@netscape.com"> How do
--privkey-der-pkcs8 and --privkey-pem-pkcs8 sound?.<br>
</blockquote>
What about simple "--pkcs8-pem" and "--pkcs8-der"? What else besides<br>
private key could be there?<br>
<br>
Aleksey<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>