-openssl-dev;openssl.org]On Behalf Of John Viega via RT
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #306] EVP_xxx_{cfb,ofb} problems in openssl
0.9.7-beta3
Yes, it does indeed seem to be fixed. Seeing that OFB and CFB
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
Those modes *require* that a multiple of {block_size} bytes get
through to get properly encrypted/decrypted.
In case I wasn't clear last time (rereading, I'm afraid I wasn't), the
above quoted text is wrong.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
I'm honestly unsure what you guys are talking about. Could it
confusion over the fact that we have only implemented CFB-xx and
OFB-xx, where xx is the block size of the underlying algorithm? This
means that
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 17 Oct 2002
14:15:22 -0400, John Viega [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm honestly unsure what you guys are talking about. Could it
confusion over the fact that we have only
Yes, it does indeed seem to be fixed. Seeing that OFB and CFB are
pretty fundamental, shouldn't a fix like that merit a b4 release,
particularly considering how long it's been since b3? :)
John
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 05:34 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-openssl-dev;openssl.org]On Behalf Of John Viega via RT
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #306] EVP_xxx_{cfb,ofb} problems in openssl
0.9.7-beta3
Yes, it does indeed
Hmm, I just noticed this problem yesterday, as well. As a temporary
work-around, you can turn off padding with OFB mode, and everything
works as expected. I'm pretty sure I got an error related to block
alignment when I turned off padding in CFB mode.
However, the CFB mode behavior is now
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 17 Oct 2002
14:15:22 -0400, John Viega [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm honestly unsure what you guys are talking about. Could it
confusion over the fact that we have only
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
Those modes *require* that a multiple of {block_size} bytes get
through to get properly encrypted/decrypted.
In case I wasn't clear last time (rereading, I'm afraid I wasn't), the
above quoted text is wrong.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 17 Oct
2002 16:34:55 -0400, John Viega [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
viega Perhaps it would help to show you how things work differently in 0.9.6
viega and 0.9.7. Try this code out in each one:
viega
viega #include openssl/evp.h
viega
viega int main(int argc,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:46:24
+0200 (METDST), John Viega via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
rt Whacker wrote:
rt
rt Those modes *require* that a multiple of {block_size} bytes get
rt through to get
Yes, it does indeed seem to be fixed. Seeing that OFB and CFB are
pretty fundamental, shouldn't a fix like that merit a b4 release,
particularly considering how long it's been since b3? :)
John
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 05:34 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message
12 matches
Mail list logo
