Other Parts Discussed in Thread: , UNIFLASH, CC3100, CC3120
I'm trying to set up an HTTP server on the cc3200 with SSL.
My code fails during the SSL handshake with an error -458:
I believe it's this:
CC3200SDK_1.2.0//cc3200-sdk/simplelink/include/socket.h:#define SL_ESECBADPRIVATEFILE (-458) /* error secure level bad private file */
Does anyone in Ti know if this refers to a bad private key, or if a cert file is rejected because it's not private?
The only example in the SDK that uses an SSL server is the 'Serial Wifi' example: so I attempted to run this.
I generated the keys and flashed them exactly as instructed.
When I start the mDNS server, it repeatedly generates these errors:
[SOCK ERROR] - close socket (80) operation accept failed due to ssl issue
[SOCK ERROR] - close socket (83) operation failed to transmit all queued packets
Can anyone confirm that the Serial Wifi example works with the current hardware, service pack 2.0.7 and SDK 1.2.0?
I suspect that there's something required to make the cert files 'private': could it relate to the release notes for Uniflash where it says:
http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/CC3100_%26_CC3200_UniFlash#Secured_File_System_support
Note: Uniflash version v3.2.0.00123 or earlier had the option to format the device as secured (in case it is not) and also create secured files.
However, secured file system support is deprecated from newer Uniflash versions. The support for secured file system would be added again once new devices fully support this feature.
I can't find any definitive info about generating and flashing certs: a lot of the information in the wiki and forum seem to be contradictory - ie
- do the files have to have names like /cert/129.der or is this just because thats how the examples are coded?
- Here: https://e2e.ti.com/support/wireless_connectivity/simplelink_wifi_cc31xx_cc32xx/f/968/t/363183 it is claimed that the cert files have to have a file ID of 129, 130 and 131 - however when I flash the files according to the instructions in the serial wifi example they end up with file IDs of 6, 7 and 8: could this be the problem?