I'm sure you read pem2.h and therefore the reason it exists. If you
have a better idea on solving the circular dependency problem
described, we're all ears.
However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
better
Thanks for the report, that was an error in production.
If you grab the latest 0.9.7 snapshot, you'll probably see that
things have improved...
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:40:45 2002]:
Hi,
I have winnt 4.0 sp6a , vc++ 6 and NASM version 0.98
When I execute ms\do_nasm
I have
I just commited a fix. Thanks for the report. The next snapshot will
contain the fix.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 22:13:18 2002]:
I downloaded beta1 to a OpenVMS V7.2-1 system
running DEC C V6.2-008. I ran into two build problems:
1. SSL-LIB.COM contains an ON ERROR
hi Lutz,
patch to add SET-specific objects is attached. It's rather large,
still it would let to build Naina without modifying openssl code.
thank you,
Vadim
- Forwarded message from Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I successfully built OpenSSL 0.9.7-beta1 on my m68k-next-openstep42
system. It did require adding an extra include somewhere I can't
remember offhand, and patching one of the test case files, but other
than that it built right out of the box without any issues. Make test
completes without any
Am Mit, 2002-06-05 um 08.12 schrieb Richard Levitte via RT:
BN_pseudo_rand_range() was given in the synopsis exactly as you
requested, since 0.9.6c (or at least, that's what I can make out by
checking with our repository). I must say that I have some difficulty
doing anything with this
Am Mit, 2002-06-05 um 08.12 schrieb Richard Levitte via RT:
BN_pseudo_rand_range() was given in the synopsis exactly as you
requested, since 0.9.6c (or at least, that's what I can make out by
checking with our repository). I must say that I have some difficulty
doing anything with this
To follow up, I compiled a small dirname from the ucLinux project, and
while that operates correctly, these man pages would not install. In the
end I just ended up commenting out the Perl manual stuff and installing it
by hand. The rest of the make install process completes successfully.
In message 1023267032.28480.18.camel@woodstock on 05 Jun 2002 10:50:31 +0200,
Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
martin Am Mit, 2002-06-05 um 08.12 schrieb Richard Levitte via RT:
martin
martin BN_pseudo_rand_range() was given in the synopsis exactly as you
martin requested, since
Hi,
The private key is not generated by me, it's generated with some
commercial software (unknown vendor).
Shamely, I need to sign my own certificate with this cert, can't avoid
using this .-/.
I will contact the provider and ask the software they are using.
Thanks,
Jarmo
Robert Eiglmaier
Hi,
I downloaded beta1 to a OpenVMS V7.2-1 system
running DEC C V6.2-008. I ran into two build problems:
1. SSL-LIB.COM contains an ON ERROR statement
that does not have a THEN clause.
2. TESTS.COM does not accept NONE as a valid TCPIP
Just found out the software, it's F-Secure VPN+.
Robert Eiglmaier wrote:
Hi Jarmo,
how did you generate your private key?
When I asn1parse it it looks very different from my openssl generated.
First it has an AlgorithmIdentifier (rsaEncryption) where mine doesn't
have one. And then it
hi,
We have ssl (VERSION=0.9.7-dev) in the OpenBSD-CURRENT.
Now we dig the problem in ${PORTS}/comms/kermit.
cc -O2 -DBSD44 -DCK_CURSES -DCK_NEWTERM -DTCPSOCKET -DOPENBSD
-DUSE_UU_LOCK -DFNFLOAT -DUSE_STRERROR -DCKHTTP -DCK_SSL
-DCK_AUTHENTICATION -DCK_ENCRYPTION -DCK_DES
OK, there are several issues here.
First of all, your private key is broken, or rather the structure it
has been packed into. BEGIN PRIVATE KEY indicates that the key is
wrapped in a PKCS8 structure. That structure should start with an
integer indicating the version number of the structure
However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
better solution to break the circular dependency mentioned above, I
don't see that this really needs to get fixed. I'll add the keyword
nice to have to this
A little more analysis seems to indicate that X509_EXTENSION isn't
properly coded, since freeing it requires a dive into the
OCTET_STRING (or whatever that translates to) and free whatever
that's pointing to.
The code in question is crypto/asn1/x_exten.c, and for comparison,
one might want
Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
coded like this:
echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
dirname foo returns . which the above doesn't catch.
I can only think of the following short shell script
#! /bin/sh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:43:45 -0400, Rich
Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
rsalz Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
rsalz coded like this:
rsalz
rsalz echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
Thanks for the report, I've commited the suggested fix.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri May 31 21:03:26 2002]:
I believe that I have found a bug in the above file and would like
for
someone
else to santiy check it.
At line 290 in a_utctm.c, a separate code block is being used if
the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:32:44 -0400, Rich
Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
rsalz declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
rsalz better solution to break the circular
However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
better solution to break the circular dependency mentioned above, I
don't see that this really needs to get fixed. I'll add the keyword
nice to have to this
Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
coded like this:
echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
dirname foo returns . which the above doesn't catch.
I can only think of the following short shell script
#! /bin/sh
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:43:45 -0400, Rich
Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
rsalz Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
rsalz coded like this:
rsalz
rsalz echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:32:44 -0400, Rich
Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
rsalz declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
rsalz better solution to break the circular
On 02-06-05 15:43:45 CEST, Rich Salz wrote:
Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
coded like this:
echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
dirname foo returns . which the above doesn't catch.
I can only think of the
On 02-06-05 15:43:45 CEST, Rich Salz wrote:
Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
coded like this:
echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
dirname foo returns . which the above doesn't catch.
I can only think of the
rsalz*/* ) echo $I | sed -e 's@\(.*\)/.*@\1@' ;;
Why such a complicated sed? 's@/[^/]*$@@' is perfecty sufficient, and
a little bit more efficient :-).
Because it makes the implementation of basename pretty obvious :)
As for efficiency :) here's an implementation that uses
I just commited a change that involves having a new script called
dirname.pl in util/.
Thanks for the report.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 5 09:33:57 2002]:
I successfully built OpenSSL 0.9.7-beta1 on my m68k-next-openstep42
system. It did require adding an extra include somewhere I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 05 Jun 2002 10:10:52 -0400, Rich
Salz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rsalz rsalz */* ) echo $I | sed -e 's@\(.*\)/.*@\1@' ;;
rsalz
rsalz Why such a complicated sed? 's@/[^/]*$@@' is perfecty sufficient, and
rsalz a little bit more efficient
Uhmm, BTW, what exactly do you think that'll solve, considering the
actual problem?
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 5 15:54:26 2002]:
However, double declaration isn't an error, at least if the
declarations are exactly the same. Until someone comes up with a
better solution to break the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
levitte 05-Jun-2002 13:23:23
Modified:crypto/asn1 Tag: OpenSSL_0_9_6-stable a_enum.c a_int.c
Log:
signedness warning corrected
Revision ChangesPath
No revision
No revision
1.15.2.2 +2 -1
The doc says :
Create an OCSP request and write it to a file:
openssl ocsp -issuer issuer.pem -cert c1.pem -cert c2.pem -reqout req.der
In my test, I try to do exactly that with :
openssl ocsp -issuer ocsp_ca.pem -cert ocsp_valide.cer -cert
ocsp_revoque.cer -reqout req.der
But no req.der
It avoid the double declaration
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL
rsalz*/* ) echo $I | sed -e 's@\(.*\)/.*@\1@' ;;
Why such a complicated sed? 's@/[^/]*$@@' is perfecty sufficient, and
a little bit more efficient :-).
Because it makes the implementation of basename pretty obvious :)
As for efficiency :) here's an implementation that
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 03:10:58PM +0200, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 5 14:48:52 2002]:
ck_ssl.c: In function k_tn_tls_negotiate':
ck_ssl.c:3232: ID_uniqueIdentifier' undeclared (first use in this
function)
ck_ssl.c:3232: (Each undeclared identifier is
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can I assume that sed exists and works properly? dirname can be
coded like this:
echo $$i | sed -e 's|[^/]*$||' -e 's|/$||'
If that's guaranteed to work everywhere, that seems to be a good
candidate for a 'dirname $$i'
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:47:39 2002]:
Building 0.9.7 (snapshot from June 1) with Cygwin led to several
warnings during compilation related to the assembly code now
included
by default. Despite the warnings, it passed the tests in make
test.
Does something need to get fixed?
37 matches
Mail list logo
