[openssl.org #8] EVP_SealFinal declared void while the docu states it returns int

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Apr 25 16:16:02 2002]: Is this the expected behaviour ? Either way one must be fixed :) Btw EVP_OpenFinal does exactly what EVP_SealFinal does and adds to this the return value... Hmm, I think Steve should answer this one. Personally, I think this shows a certain

[openssl.org #54] Compilation error m68k-next-openstep4

The problem is fixed. As Lutz pointed out, we missed enginetest.c when converting all strdup() to BUF_strdup()... -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

I understand the concern here, but I very strongly disagree with the solution. Casting everything from size_t to int is going in the wrong direction. I'll work on moving int to size_t where needed. If someone can tell me how to simulate have a 64-bit size_t on Linux, it would make it

[openssl.org #39] openssl-0.9.6d shared libs built on OSX *WITHOUT* .dylib extension ...

[levitte - Thu May 30 09:06:04 2002]: You're quite right, .dylib isn't added. The reason was two-fold: 1) darwin-ppc-cc, as well as a few other targets, had the shared_extensions field misaligned, which in effet disabled having any extension at all for shared libraries. 2) support for

[openssl.org #43] Double Free Error

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri May 17 19:50:59 2002]: Installed openssl-0.9.6d source and built it locally. Built a PEM certificate for testing U of W IMAP with SSL. SSL didn't work, wouldn't accept the certificate. Discovered that code still has a double free bug that was reported back in

[openssl.org #56] Apparent bug in AES_ctr128_encrypt

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 26 11:34:49 2002]: The main loop from AES_ctr128_encrypt seems superficially incorrect. If any non-zero initial value is provided for *num, the first 16-*num bytes are not necessarily encrypted. You do know that AES_ctr128_encrypt() must be called with

[openssl.org #51] OpenSSL 0.9.7 -BUG - WIN32

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu May 30 16:22:22 2002]: Hi again, Sorry Richard, but your suggestion just don't work: OPENSSL_SYS_MSDOS is used all over the source and in principle these #ifdefs are correct. The only thing that must be fixed is that #define MS_STATIC static (set in e_os.h)

[openssl.org #57] Solaris64 sparc-v9 GCC 3.1 patch for OpenSSL 0.9.6d Configure

The patch is now applied and committed. Thanks! [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue May 28 20:00:46 2002]: Well, here it is... Works great for me, passed all tests. Creates a 64bit OpenSSL package for Solaris using the newly released GCC 3.1 -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #43] Double Free Error

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu May 30 19:28:13 2002]: Hi, Just wanted you to know that I'm still having problems with DER format certificates. A more thorough inspection turned up additional double free errors in the same directory :( Hmm, would you mind telling me which file it is, since

[openssl.org #52] Bug in crypto/cversion.c:84

This was much easier to fix than I thought. Committed and present in the next snapshot. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu May 23 16:27:27 2002]: Hi there, it seems that in line 84 in crypto/cversion.c there is a bug: eg. if you run Configure with -DDEVRANDOM=\/dev/random\ and therefore the

[openssl.org #69] Incorrect use of strsep in crypto/evp/evp_test.c

Probably because of atoi(), a last-second change was made, changing ustrsep to strsep on that line. Try replacing strsep with ustrsep, that should work better (I know it worked for me). I'll look into this when I have more time. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 3 13:02:51 2002]: Hi, I

[openssl.org #67] openssl req -nameopts fails

Please resend a patch that is generated using one of the options -u (unified context diff, which is prefered) or -c (context diff). [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 3 11:42:22 2002]: Hi, I used -nameopt with openssl req and the options will be ignored if req is used with -text. I checked

[openssl.org #69] Incorrect use of strsep in crypto/evp/evp_test.c

I just commited that change. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 3 13:02:51 2002]: Hi, I checked the code in crypto/evp/evp_test.c and it looks like sstrsep do the same like strsep on Linux. So perhaps it was a typo and the code was only tested under Linux. I used sstrsep insteed of

[openssl.org #68] OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta1: gcc version check broken for gcc 3.1

Change commited. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager

[openssl.org #78] Memleak in libcrypto

Sorry, I fail to see the problem here. As far as I understand the code, *pval points at the ASN.1 blob that is the result of parsing the attribute string you're citing. Surely you don't want that to be freed before you even got to use it, do you? Or do I misunderstand something here?

[openssl.org #64] can't compile demos/maurice/loadkeys.c

The fix is to add an extra NULL argument at the end of the argument list in both places where this error occurs. I've just commited a patch, so the above fix will be present in 0.9.6e. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri May 31 09:32:25 2002]: I've just installed openssl-0.9.6c on Linux, and I'm

[openssl.org #70] [Fwd: Bug#144586: libssl-dev: Typo in BN_rand(3ssl) man page]

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 report because of that... -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #71] [Fwd: Bug#141360: libssl-dev: gcc warning: redundant declaration of ERR_load_PEM_strings()]

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

[openssl.org #74] problem with openssl-0.9.7-beta1 mkdef.pl

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

[openssl.org #79] 0.9.7 Beta1 - Build problems on OpenVMS.

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

[openssl.org #77] Openssl 0.9.6d coredumps

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

[openssl.org #78] Memleak in libcrypto

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

[openssl.org #66] Possible bug in OpenSSL-0.9.6d/crypto/asn1/a_utctm.c

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

[openssl.org #81] Bug Report 0.9.7b1: make install broken on NeXTSTEP/OpenStep

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

[openssl.org #71] [Fwd: Bug#141360: libssl-dev: gcc warning: redundant declaration of ERR_load_PEM_strings()]

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

[openssl.org #76] Cygwin problems with 0.9.7

[[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?

[openssl.org #77] Openssl 0.9.6d coredumps

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 6 08:52:53 2002]: Great! Please clarify this for me, can I say F-secure is not compatible with standards or has the vendor possibility to choose the key format? F-secure doesn't seem to be compatible with standards. There are a number of structures that a

[openssl.org #75] DJGPP (DOS) Patch for 0.9.7

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:47:25 2002]: OK, I've a few comments: --- openssl-0.9.7/Configure.orig 2002-05-30 10:08:08.0 -0800 +++ openssl-0.9.7/Configure 2002-06-02 15:23:38.0 -0800 @@ -513,6 +513,9 @@ Cygwin-pre1.3, gcc:-DTERMIOS -DL_ENDIAN

[openssl.org #75] DJGPP (DOS) Patch for 0.9.7

I finally committed most of your changes. Please download the next snapshot of 0.9.7 and check that it works as intended. I'm keeping this ticket open until you have confirmed that it works (perhaps after further changes). -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #96] bug in config script (gcc 3.1)

I went for a different solution. Since the problem was the sed that takes away all the crap before the version number, I changed it to have the dash be part of the character set to remove instead of having it as a mandatory character after said set. That should resolve this ticket. Reopen

[openssl.org #62] [PATCH] for building with UWIN

I've just added the changes you suggested, and made a tentative addition in 0.9.7 as well, where I mimic the way Cygwin is configured. Please download the next snapshot of both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7 and test them. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #105] Problem build 0.9.7 SNAP with ./Configure debug

I solved this, not by changing bn_mul.c, since BN_DEBUG doesn't necessarely mean we don't want assembler. Instead, I changed the debug target i Configure to add -DOPENSSL_NO_ASM to the C flags. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL

[openssl.org #106] 0.9.7 Beta2 - install.com referencing non-existent rsaref directory.

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 18 16:48:39 2002]: it complained that the rsaref directory did not exist. I changed install.com from this line: $ SDIRS := CRYPTO,SSL,RSAREF,APPS,VMS!,TEST,TOOLS to: $ SDIRS := CRYPTO,SSL,APPS,VMS!,RSAREF,TEST,TOOLS Applied and committed. you

[openssl.org #107] pb installing OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta2 on W2000

It sounds like something is corrupted on your machine. I can't tell you what it is, unfortunately. Take a look at util/mk1mf.pl and search for CRYPTOOBJ. If it's split in two in there (i.e. you have to search for CRYPTO to find it), I'd say something went quite wrong when you unpacked the

[openssl.org #111] Cross compilation assumption

How do you suggest we handle this? And BTW, speaking of hacking the Makefiles, you really only need to hack the topmost one. The value of AR will be propagated down. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 21 09:37:30 2002]: This applies to openssl 0.9.6d (and all earlier versions) The build

[openssl.org #112] minor bug in M_PKCS12_cert_bag_type

Good catch! I've renamed the macro argument to 'bg', which is the same as other macros further down use. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jun 21 09:54:34 2002]: #define M_PKCS12_cert_bag_type(bag) OBJ_obj2nid(bag-value.bag-type) if the variable passed in has the name bag, this works, but

[openssl.org #113] subjectAltName bugs (current CVS)

This is not a bug, it's a misunderstanding on your part. By default, request extensions aren't copied to the new certificate. However, in the [ca] section, you can have the setting 'copy_extensions' with one of the following values: none Doesn't copy anything (default) copy

[openssl.org #115] aix 5.1 openssl compiling problem and solution

It would be nice if you told us which configuration target you used. If you don't know, the following will give you the answer: grep '^CONFIGURE_ARGS=' Makefile [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Jun 23 16:44:16 2002]: hi, i try to compile openssl 0.9.6d and 0.9.7-beta2 under AIX 5.1 (ML

[openssl.org #117] Solaris 9/gcc 3.1/64-bit linking requires additional flag

Change applied and commited. Thanks. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 24 16:30:46 2002]: OpenSSL won't build a 64-bit shared library correctly unless -m64 is given to gcc when invoked as linker. For testing purposes I added -m64 manually to SHARED_LDFLAGS. Compiling and 'make test' went

[openssl.org #119] Bug Report/Change Request: pkcs7 cmd always returns 0 exit status

Change applied and committed. Thanks! [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 25 21:48:00 2002]: Line 91 of apps/pkcs7.c contains int ret=0; Can this be changed to int ret=1; So that the pkcs7 command will return 1 on error and 0 if successful? -- Richard Levitte

[openssl.org #123] [PATCH] Build on Win32 with Borland C++Builder 5 and nasm

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 11:32:12 2002]: A few comments... rand.h : Various files in the tree (crypto/des/rand_key.c, for example) include rand.h without including anything that would drag in windows.h and hence windef.h under Win32. This causes a problem with the prototype of

[openssl.org #123] [PATCH] Build on Win32 with Borland C++Builder 5 and nasm

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 11:32:12 2002]: x509.h : This is the change I'm genuinely unsure about. x509.h includes asn1.h, but both x509/x_all.c and x509v3/v3_bitst.c reference (via macros) struct ASN1_ITEM_st, which is defined not in asn1.h but in asn1t.h. Since both files include

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

John, I didn't notice this before, but VC-64.pl is missing from your patch. Could you please send it to us? I've set up my laptop (running W2K, which I assume will be OK) with the platform SDK you mentioned and will do a testrun as soon as I can. -- Richard Levitte

[openssl.org #123] [PATCH] Build on Win32 with Borland C++Builder 5 and nasm

All changes have now been applied, so I'm setting this ticket to resolved. Please download the next snapshot (tomorrow) and try it out. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project

[openssl.org #111] Cross compilation assumption

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 15:49:46 2002]: Yes, I did notice that after sending, so it's not that big a deal as I first thought. I can see two solutions: - Add another field to Configure Yes, that could be a possibility. Another is to call make like this: make AR=foo Also,

[openssl.org #107] pb installing OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta2 on W2000

for Win32. now the installation work fine. Thanks Francois - Original Message - From: Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:41 AM Subject: [openssl.org #107] pb installing OpenSSL 0.9.7 beta2

[openssl.org #92] Prototypes SSL_write() SSL_read() problem in openssl/ssl.h for 64-bit applications

I'd like to know which platform this is on. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager

[openssl.org #75] DJGPP (DOS) Patch for 0.9.7

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jun 17 09:54:04 2002]: The snapshot doesn't work under DJGPP, but I think that this patch will fix it. There were several problems. In Configure, you tried to use ENV{DJDIR}, but this puts in a DOS style path such as That was a mistake, I only changed one of the

[openssl.org #123] [PATCH] Build on Win32 with Borland C++Builder 5 and nasm

Oops, sorry. Applied, please try again. Also, do you have the possibility to check if it works properly with Builder 4? [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 18:44:26 2002]: You've missed part of the patch to BC-32.pl - I've attached the missing patch. There's also still the issue with

[openssl.org #71] [Fwd: Bug#141360: libssl-dev: gcc warning: redundant declaration of ERR_load_PEM_strings()]

I changed pem2.h so it would check if pem.h has already been included. That should fix the problem, I believe. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing

[openssl.org #111] Cross compilation assumption

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 17:42:23 2002]: It's RISC OS. The command is still 'ar', but it's in a different path and is a wrapper to a different tool which generates RISC OS library files - i.e, not Archive files. Having said that, my argument falls a bit flat, because you can in

[openssl.org #22] [PATCH] to dev build 20020428 for Win64 on Itanium

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Jun 27 17:30:55 2002]: That's funny, it's in my image, and I just zipped the entire thing up. And now I discovered that 64all.bat is missing as well. *sigh* -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project

[openssl.org #133] Re: OpenVMS openssl-0.9.7-beta2.tar.gz

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 03 Jul 2002 11:22:46 +0930, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark.Daniel 1) These had E_OS.H in the [.SSL] directory as well as Mark.Danielthe top-level package directory. 0.9.7 only has it in Mark.Danielthe top-level. E_OS.H never existed in the [.SSL] as

[openssl.org #148] Re: 0.9.7 PATCH (strcasecmp)

Quick question: does string.h in Unixware define strcasecmp()? strings.h is non-standard while string.h is standard, as far as I know. We should change that in any case, unless someone has a different opinion. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Jul 15 09:33:16 2002]: This patch seems to have been

[openssl.org #140] Proposal to extend PEM id recognition for trusted certificates

What version of OpenSSL are you talking about? check_pem() appeared in OpenSSL 0.9.5, and has been entirely unchanged since. It currently contains the following lines: /* Allow normal certs to be read as trusted certs */ if(!strcmp(nm,PEM_STRING_X509)

[openssl.org #140] Proposal to extend PEM id recognition for trusted certificates

Sorry, you're right, I misread your proposal... I think Steve can answer a little better about the difference in the default read and write functions. However, in the mean time, there's nothing stopping you from using PEM_read [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jul 16 10:05:13 2002]: Im using

[openssl.org #140] Proposal to extend PEM id recognition for trusted certificates

Sorry, you're right, I misread your proposal... I think Steve can answer a little better about the difference in the default read and write functions. In the mean time, did you notice that you mention the implementation of X509 for reading, but X509_AUX for writing. How about using

[openssl.org #140] Proposal to extend PEM id recognition for trusted certificates

Please ignore this one. I pushed the wrong button at the wrong moment... [levitte - Tue Jul 16 10:21:19 2002]: Sorry, you're right, I misread your proposal... I think Steve can answer a little better about the difference in the default read and write functions. However, in the mean

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

Note that Apple delivers OpenSSL 0.9.6b, so it may be that the differences are few enough not to trigger much problems, apparently with RC4 being the great exception. Actually, even this shouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for some binary incompatibilities between (I think) 0.9.6c and

[openssl.org #152] Inconsistency between Darwin entry in Configure

In the 0.9.6-stable branch, the Darwin entry has information on how to build with threading enabled, and has a much simpler set of arguments than the corresponding enty in 0.9.7-stable and HEAD. It seems to me like the entry in HEAD comes from previous experiments and should be simplified

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

Test complete, 0.9.6e-dev went through without any problems. I'll see if I can find the delivered libraries again and try to reinstall them and see what effect that has on it all. [levitte - Tue Jul 16 12:31:37 2002]: Note that Apple delivers OpenSSL 0.9.6b, so it may be that the

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

[levitte - Tue Jul 16 13:01:40 2002]: Test complete, 0.9.6e-dev went through without any problems. I'll see if I can find the delivered libraries again and try to reinstall them and see what effect that has on it all. Done. With 0.9.6e-dev, I get exactly the same failure in the RC4 test

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

[levitte - Wed Jul 17 09:25:24 2002]: [...] As for 0.9.8-dev, forget it for the moment, there are too damn many symbols missing in /usr/lib/libcrypto.dylib. I just tried building with shared support, and it actually works with a little extra work in the makefiles (MacOS X uses

[openssl.org #140] Proposal to extend PEM id recognition for trusted certificates

Actually, my answer suggest user error. I will therefore resolve this ticket. [levitte - Tue Jul 16 10:28:14 2002]: In the mean time, did you notice that you mention the implementation of X509 for reading, but X509_AUX for writing. How about using PEM_read_bio_X509_AUX() or

[openssl.org #148] Re: 0.9.7 PATCH (strcasecmp)

Actually, I found that strcasecmp() is often declared in strings.h, so it still needs to be included in most places. Therefore, I applied your original patch. This ticket is now resolved. [levitte - Tue Jul 16 09:03:42 2002]: Quick question: does string.h in Unixware define strcasecmp()?

[openssl.org #73] make failing under MAC OS X (darwin)

This most likely yet again the problem with the way ld works on MacOS X. I'll attach the PROBLEMS file that has a section about this particular problem and possible solutions. I hereby consider this ticket resolved. [jaenicke - Tue Jun 11 13:55:44 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4

[openssl.org #104] Make fails with undefined reference

Has this problem been dealt with yet? [jaenicke - Tue Jun 18 12:30:24 2002]: On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 07:43:18PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote: redhat linux never upgraded libraries are rpm's glibc-2.1.92-14 and glibc-devel-2.1.92-14. it's redhat 7.0. I think sysconf is

[openssl.org #118] How to implement OPENssl on AS 400

I've seen no further communications on this subject. Has this issue been dealt with? Is there a change that we should apply, or shall we just kill this ticket? [jaenicke - Tue Jun 25 22:25:56 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 25 20:51:20 2002]: Hello friend, I am working for IBM

[openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

I've reversed the patch. Bodo is correct, it's not OpenSSL's responsability to do the various conversions that may be done by the C run-time library anyway. If there are problems passing the resulting file to some library that expects the formating to CRLF line ends in a text file, the

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

It's in the middle of the afternoon, so I'm resolving this ticket. I've mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the whole issue. Whenever I get a good answer, I'll make appropriate changes. Until then, MacOS X will simply need to be tweaked before one can compile OpenSSL on it. [levitte - Wed Jul

[openssl.org #139] [Fwd: Bug#150260: openssl: unnecessarily chatty on stderr]

As far as I know, most programs deliver verbosity to stderr rather than stdout. One could argue that OpenSSL should have optional verbosity, and I would agree. I'm not sure if this belongs in the important range of fixes, however. If a -verbose flag is to be added, I don't know if I want

[openssl.org #144] declaration bug between openssl.c / apps.c

Hey Andrew, Actually, OpenSSL hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode, as far as I know. Honestly, I don't think we should go the non-monolith path eaither, if you consider commands like passwd... If you tell me why you want to go non-monolith, I might change my mind. No

[openssl.org #144] declaration bug between openssl.c / apps.c

[levitte - Thu Jul 18 19:41:51 2002]: Hey Andrew, Actually, OpenSSL hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode, as far as I know. I meant to write hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode *in a long time*... -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #147] [PATCH] The function print_name in apps/apps.c truncates X509_NAM Es that are longer than 255 characters

Fixed by letting X509_NAME_oneline() allocate the string. This ticket is now resolved. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

[openssl.org #156] Bugs in doc/crypto/{DH,DSA}_set_method.pod

Those two files are copies of the 0.9.6d [engine] variants. However, most functionality has been restored back to the pre-engine days (or rather, the ENGINE framework has become much more transparent). I'm tempted to just revert those two files back to what they are in 0.9.6d, but I'd like

[openssl.org #59] 0.9.7 EVP manual pages incomplete

I just did a tentative addition of history. Please check it and complete it if needed. [levitte - Thu Jul 18 11:19:52 2002]: Has this been dealt with? [jaenicke - Wed May 29 21:45:30 2002]: The manual pages about the EVP wrapper do not reflect the complete history. Example:

[openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

For now, I've added a note in the documentation of RSA_check_key() that explains that it doesn't work properly for hard keys and why. We will ponder a little more on this issue. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 19 09:52:27 2002]: It wouldn't take much to make this function compatible, or the

[openssl.org #115] aix 5.1 openssl compiling problem and solution

I just realised that the configuration entries for AIX currently assume a 32-bit environment. The question is how gcc view this, and especially what size an int is, and also the size of a long. If either of them is 64 bits, a different configuration entry may be useful, perhaps called

[openssl.org #104] Make fails with undefined reference

Since this hasn't been reported by anyone else and we haven't heard from the original requestor in a while, I'm stalling this ticket. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project

[openssl.org #156] Bugs in doc/crypto/{DH,DSA,RSA}_set_method.pod and doc/crypto/{dh,dsa,rsa}.pod

[geoff - Fri Jul 19 19:00:55 2002]: Attached is a diff to the RSA_set_method.pod for starters - before I start doing essentially regexp'd versions of this to the other PODs and other assorted wholesale document-surgery, could you take a look? Those changes look good to me. I'd say you

[openssl.org #181] Makefile enhancement requests

I just took care of the last part of your request (which is a bug): Hmm ... what else ... Ah ... I'm not sure if this really is a bug: * The newest snapshot claims to be 0.9.8, but it installs files as 0.9.7. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #181] Makefile enhancement requests

I've no fixed the following items: * Creating the links to the libraries fails on at least Solaris regardless of the force flag: installing libssl.so.0.9.6 + ln -f -s libcrypto.so.0.9.6 libcrypto.so.0 ln: cannot create libcrypto.so.0: File exists *** Error code 2 make: Fatal error:

[openssl.org #170] OpenSSLDie not exported in Win32

Since Jeffrey has made such a good job analysing this, what are the comments from everyone else? I'd like to be rid of OpenSSLdie() if possible... I see no problem with the void-int conversion... [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jul 30 17:35:58 2002]: That is fine. So the patches are out and

[openssl.org #187] realloc() on sunos4 : openssl-0.9.6e

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Aug 1 09:20:27 2002]: On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Jon Peatfield wrote: Looking through the rest of the 0.9.6e patch I can't see any other cases where realloc() is called like this but I might well have missed some. I'm hoping that someone who understands the code

[openssl.org #187] realloc() on sunos4 : openssl-0.9.6e

AAAaaargh! I didn't read properly. Please ignore my rant. I rather believe that the change should be done in OPENSSL_realloc(), so future uses elsewhere do not get into the same trouble. [levitte - Thu Aug 1 11:23:34 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Aug 1 09:20:27 2002]: On Wed, 31

[openssl.org #179] openssl-0.9.6e under HP-UX 10.20

[jaenicke - Wed Jul 31 09:46:10 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jul 31 09:35:46 2002]: When I type ./config under HP-UX 10.20 I get the message ./config[398]: test: Specify a parameter with this command. The problem occurs with version 0.9.6e, not with earlier versions. This

[openssl.org #171] packaging problems in 0.9.6e

[jaenicke - Tue Jul 30 22:25:20 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jul 30 18:49:55 2002]: Some of the files in the 0.9.6e tarball have restrictive permissions which prevent building and installing as different non-privileged users. -rw--- openssl/openssl 23853 Jul 30 11:06 2002

[openssl.org #189] Kerberos Ciphersuite IDs

Hmm, there's a problem that haven't been addressed at all by the IETF. SSLv3 contains the following as part of it's ciphersuite: The final cipher suites are for the FORTEZZA token. CipherSuite SSL_FORTEZZA_KEA_WITH_NULL_SHA = { 0X00,0X1C }; CipherSuite

[openssl.org #190] [PATCH] Command line processing bug in 'ocsp'.

Patch applied as given. Thanks. This ticket is now resolved. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Aug 1 15:15:55 2002]: Hi, The -rother option of the 'ocsp' command is not processed correctly (probably nobody has used it before :-)). Here is a patch for openssl-0.9.7-beta3, I tested and it

[openssl.org #164] 0.9.7b2

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jul 24 14:24:12 2002]: 1) cmdline openssl rsa cannot read keys from stdin, they have to be specified using the -in argument. I believe I've fixed this part. Please test the next snapshot. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #164] 0.9.7b2

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jul 24 14:24:12 2002]: 2) cmdline openssl x509 doesn't set AKI although it is specified in the config file and the CA cert has an appropriate SKI. Do you have the possibility to send me that config file, your CA cert and that resulting cert, so I can take a look,

[openssl.org #175] openssl-0.9.6e bug under Irix 6.5?

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Aug 1 23:12:26 2002]: We tracked this problem to the use of parallel make (make -P under IRIX). The test routines run shell scripts that are not safe to run in parallel. For example, in tx509 there is the sequence: cp $t fff.p $cmd -in fff.p -inform p -outform p

[openssl.org #191] 0.9.7-beta3 build procedures

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Aug 2 09:00:52 2002]: $ USER_CCDEFS = _VMS_V6_SOURCE=1,__VMS_VER=6000,__CRTL_VER=6000 This, BTW, explains the problems you describe in PR 184. You see, the declaration of strcasecmp() is wrapped in #if __CRTL_VER = 7000..#endif. This means we

[openssl.org #203] OpenSSL 0.9.6f install broken: no egcs, no doc, no shared libs

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Aug 9 07:56:08 2002]: The configuration and installation process of the new OpenSSL 0.9.6f package is broken in several places. Same problems on Linux and Solaris. The package cannot be installed properly. OK, I thought the snapshots had been tested. My bad.

[openssl.org #203] OpenSSL 0.9.6f install broken: no egcs, no doc, no shared libs

[levitte - Fri Aug 9 09:42:58 2002]: 4. The Makefile contains another error which prevents the correct installation of shared libraries. At the end of the install: section, the following line $(MAKE) -f $$here/Makefile link-shared ); \ should read

[openssl.org #209] VU#748355 Feedback

The problem has been fixed. Please grab version 0.9.6g. This ticket is now resolved. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat Aug 10 00:44:57 2002]: We have a question on the patched code: http://www.openssl.org/news/patch_20020730_0_9_6d.txt RCS file:

[openssl.org #215] Bug for openssl-0.9.6f.tar.gz

Get 0.9.6g, which fixes a few building bugs. This ticket will be considered resolve. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Aug 12 18:34:28 2002]: #make install gcc -o rsa_test -I../include -fPIC -DTHREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLF CN_H -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -DB_ENDIAN

[openssl.org #216] Bugs in OPENSSL-0.9.7 beta 3

I have solved problems 1 and 3. Problem 2 was will take a little bit of pondering. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Aug 12 18:34:58 2002]: 1. In rmdtest.c: If I build with OPENSSL_NO_RIPEMD and rmdtest.c fails to compile because openssl/ripemd.h cannot be found. The line #include

[openssl.org #216] Bugs in OPENSSL-0.9.7 beta 3

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Aug 13 00:08:25 2002]: To see what would happen next, I added a #else else if (strcmp(*argv, -dhe1024dsa) == 0) {} in the option test sequence. It now runs all the tests quite happily but crashes with several error lines in the cleanup code. Progress! Back to

[openssl.org #208] 096g build problem on Windows 2000

Bruce, unless you give me something else to go on, I'll change the state of this ticket to resolved, on thursday. [levitte - Sat Aug 10 02:58:49 2002]: According to your log, that's 0.9.6e you're talking about. In 0.9.6f and 0.9.6g, The function OpenSSLDie() doesn't exist at all.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >