Argh, you are right. When I tried to verify the problem. I only testet
the 0.9.6g binary but had the 0.9.6c libraries installed. So I assume,
the submitter of the bug made a similar mistake.

Sorry, to bug you.

Christoph

Am Don, 2002-09-19 um 15.23 schrieb Lutz Jaenicke via RT:
> 
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Sep 19 12:11:15 2002]:
> 
> ljaenicke@lutz:~$ dpkg -l openssl
> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
> | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
> |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
> uppercase=bad)
> ||/ Name           Version        Description
> +++-==============-==============-============================================
> ii  openssl        0.9.6e-1       Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and
> related
> ljaenicke@lutz:~$ which openssl
> /usr/bin/openssl
> ljaenicke@lutz:~$ /usr/bin/openssl version
> OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> ljaenicke@lutz:~/newsoft/multiplexer$ ls -al /usr/lib/libcrypto.so
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           18 Aug 28 11:42
> /usr/lib/libcrypto.so -> libcrypto.so.0.9.6
> ljaenicke@lutz:~/newsoft/multiplexer$ ls -al /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6
> -rw-r--r--    1 root     root       744164 Jul 30 18:50
> /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6
> ljaenicke@lutz:~/newsoft/multiplexer$ strings usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6
> | grep 0.9.6
> libcrypto.so.0.9.6
> OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> MD2 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> MD4 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> MD5 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> SHA part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> SHA1 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> RIPE-MD160 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> libdes part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> DES part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> RC2 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> RC4 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> Blowfish part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> CAST part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> Big Number part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> RSA part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> DSA part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> Diffie-Hellman part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> Stack part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> lhash part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> RAND part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> EVP part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> ASN.1 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> PEM part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> X.509 part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> CONF part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> CONF_def part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> TXT_DB part of OpenSSL 0.9.6e 30 Jul 2002
> 
> So I cannot reproduce the bug reported...
> 
> Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply via email to