In message <20110320.185103.256442123.rich...@levitte.org> on Sun, 20 Mar 2011
18:51:03 +0100 (CET), Richard Levitte <rich...@levitte.org> said:
richard> In message <11032010253821_20200...@antinode.info> on Sun, 20 Mar 2011
10:25:38 -0500 (CDT), "Steven M. Schweda" <s...@antinode.info> said:
richard>
richard> sms> Perhaps better would be a three-choice scheme:
richard> sms>
richard> sms> 64 Automatic choice of "64" or "64=ARGV".
richard> sms> 64=ARGV Manual choice of "64=ARGV".
richard> sms> 64=NOARGV Manual choice of plain "64".
richard> sms>
richard> sms> Easy for the normal victim, flexible enough for the perpetrator.
Not
richard> sms> very hard to implement.
richard>
richard> I like that idea.
While I do, I'm exhausted. As it stands now, there's just the "64"
option to choose for 64 bits. It will do exactly what you mention
above, and it seems to work well together with that changes I made in
apps/openssl.c.
Have a look at tomorrow's snapshot, please, and see how it works on
your system. Let's do the rest, like the extra fancy 64-bit options
another day. (or, well, nothing stops you, of course ;-))
Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Levitte rich...@levitte.org
http://richard.levitte.org/
"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
