Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
Changed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=78597 --- shadow/78597 2006-06-16 11:31:01.000000000 -0400 +++ shadow/78597.tmp.7594 2006-06-21 14:19:53.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,22 +1,21 @@ Bug#: 78597 Product: Mono: Class Libraries Version: 1.1 OS: All OS Details: -Status: ASSIGNED +Status: NEEDINFO Resolution: Severity: Unknown Priority: Normal Component: Mono.Security AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TargetMilestone: --- URL: -Cc: Summary: SSL re-negotiation failure with Postgres Description of Problem: "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." in Mono.Security.dll when loading large amounts of data with ssl+npgsql. @@ -182,6 +181,28 @@ Ok, I'm setup to duplicate the issue (it takes about 5 minutes to reach the negotiation point). It seems we're not sending the alert (and doing so doesn't fix the issue) and it's obvious, from the NRE, that this case hasn't been tested. + +------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-21 14:19 ------- +Ok, right now I'm able to "survive" a SSL renegotiation. However I do +get some "invalid" data wrt Npgsql. The fact that the post-negotiation +handshake are successful indicates that the problem isn't SSL related +(it may be in the SslClientStream or upper-levels, but not in the +lower SSL levels). + +The invalid data after the first renegotiation is +0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x61 + +While the data after the second one is +0x00 0x0B 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x61 +(a superset of the first one) + +Third == First +Fourth == Second +... + +I'm not quite sure if those are extra data and/or if there is some +missing data. Fx, does this looks like a (partial) valid data for +Postgres protocol ? _______________________________________________ mono-bugs maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-bugs
