Hi everyone,
Firstly, I'm a beginner in the OpenSSL world. I apologize in advance for
any basic, barbaric errors. Also not quite sure if it's OK to ask here, if
not - please disregard it. I've asked this question on stackoverflow as
well.
Consider a flow:
- Initialize OpenSSL with engine using
On Sep 9, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Ted Byers r.ted.by...@gmail.com wrote:
El 09/09/2014 20:39, Larry Bugbee bug...@seanet.com escribió:
In the FWIW column
Please don't mangle names by forcing C++ namespaces. Some us call OpenSSL
from Python (and other dynamic languages) and depend on the C
Not so bad idea considering that any C program, with modern compilers,
can be compiled as cpp with no problem.
I am mixing code like this for years with no problem.
Other apps, in other languages, that CAN load dynamic libraries, could
take benefit of c++ to c lib technique wrapping such as
Not so bad idea considering that any C program, with modern compilers, can be
compiled as cpp with no problem.
That is wildly incorrect. C and C++ (which is what I assume cpp means) are
different languages.
Here's a C program that conforms to ISO 9899-1999. Try compiling it as C++.
-
Script started on Wed Sep 10 05:48:42 2014
doctor.nl2k.ab.ca//usr/source/openssl-1.0.2-stable-SNAP-20140910$ make test
testing...
(cd ..; make DIRS=crypto all)
making all in crypto...
ar r ../libcrypto.a cryptlib.o mem.o mem_dbg.o cversion.o ex_data.o cpt_err.o
ebcdic.o uid.o o_time.o o_str.o
Of course there are some differences,
but dealing with those is not a major issue...
And they lead C programs to be more clear, with stronger type management,
more clear function prototypes...
Nothing impossible to manage,
and that is worth managing.
not talking about much better rules and
This is not the place to debate the relative merits of C, C++, or the
chimerical monstrosity created by pretending the former is the latter. Suffice
it to say that there are a number of people who do not agree with the claims
you make for treating C as C++, and they are generally people who
Pretending that the contrary is impossible and insurmoutable
is just a conservative fear fud and uncertainty approach,
based on trivial examples that can/should be expurged from any
industrial program in a couple of minutes.
Understanding C language is not as complicated as C++,
and I am not
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Michael Wojcik
michael.woj...@microfocus.com wrote:
This is not the place to debate the relative merits of C, C++, or the
chimerical monstrosity created by pretending the former is the latter.
Suffice it to say that there are a number of people who do not
Hi Dave,
Are you saying that the 76 characters per line is causing the problem with
openSSL?
Thank you,
Liz
From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:49 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Dave Thompson dthomp...@prinpay.com wrote:
...
I have and know of no software to create encrypted legacy-format privatekeys
other than OpenSSL itself which always writes 64, so I never encountered
this before.
You can use Crypto++ with the PEM Pack
making install in engines/ccgost...
Fixed, sorry for the inconvenience.
OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable 3258429 RT3271 update; extra; semi-colon; confuses; some;
master cb4bb56 RT3271 update; extra; semi-colon; confuses; some;
Author: Rich Salz rs...@openssl.org
Date: Wed Sep 10 15:05:38
Hi,
I am trying to use openssl-0.9.8zb along with openssh-5.5p1 on a linux box.
However when I try running
any secure application like ssh or scp or sftp I am getting following error:
bad decrypted len: 0 != 20 + 15
key_verify failed for server_host_key
any help in debugging would be great.
13 matches
Mail list logo
