[openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows
The inclusion of e_os.h in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as either #include openssl/e_os.h or #include ../e_os.h This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), Jeffrey Altman via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt The inclusion of e_os.h in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as rt either rt rt #include openssl/e_os.h Absolutely not! rt or rt rt #include ../e_os.h I'd rather say either: #ifdef FLAT_INC # include e_os.h #else # include ../../e_os.h #endif or: #include e_os.h I prefer the latter. rt This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6. Uhmm, why does cbc_enc.c need e_os.h? But you're right, the consistency is a bit lacking there... - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), Jeffrey Altman via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt The inclusion of e_os.h in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as rt either rt rt #include openssl/e_os.h Absolutely not! rt or rt rt #include ../e_os.h I'd rather say either: #ifdef FLAT_INC # include e_os.h #else # include ../../e_os.h #endif or: #include e_os.h I prefer the latter. rt This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6. Uhmm, why does cbc_enc.c need e_os.h? But you're right, the consistency is a bit lacking there... - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
Dear I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to lower version of openssl if my system has already been install openssl-0.9.7c ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt Dear rt rt I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to rt lower version of openssl if my system has already been rt install openssl-0.9.7c There's no problem with downgrading in itself. However, you will need to take care of every application that links to libcrypto.so and libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all enabled with OpenSSL. Can I ask why the downgrade? - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt Dear rt rt I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to rt lower version of openssl if my system has already been rt install openssl-0.9.7c There's no problem with downgrading in itself. However, you will need to take care of every application that links to libcrypto.so and libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all enabled with OpenSSL. Can I ask why the downgrade? - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
Dear Richard It is because of compability problem with existing program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then restore the lower verion for downgrade clearly. Thanks --- Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt Dear rt rt I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to rt lower version of openssl if my system has already been rt install openssl-0.9.7c There's no problem with downgrading in itself. However, you will need to take care of every application that links to libcrypto.so and libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all enabled with OpenSSL. Can I ask why the downgrade? - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt It is because of compability problem with existing rt program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then rt restore the lower verion for downgrade clearly. If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so to come from OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by all means, downgrade. - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt It is because of compability problem with existing rt program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then rt restore the lower verion for downgrade clearly. If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so to come from OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by all means, downgrade. - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
Dear Richard I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer version file can be overwrited by the elder verion ones. Is it true for program running on unix --- Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt It is because of compability problem with existing rt program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then rt restore the lower verion for downgrade clearly. If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so to come from OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by all means, downgrade. - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:59:47 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer rt version file can be overwrited by the elder verion rt ones. Is it true for program running on unix The Unixly installation does it in such a way that the installed files become new files instead of overwriting old ones. The old ones are removed in the process, but may still hang in there until no process uses them (this depends on the Unix you use). - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:59:47 +0100 (MET), ho k via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer rt version file can be overwrited by the elder verion rt ones. Is it true for program running on unix The Unixly installation does it in such a way that the installed files become new files instead of overwriting old ones. The old ones are removed in the process, but may still hang in there until no process uses them (this depends on the Unix you use). - Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte \ Tunnlandsvägen 3 \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ S-168 36 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), Jeffrey Altman via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt rt The inclusion of e_os.h in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as rt either rt rt #include openssl/e_os.h Absolutely not! Well, the reason I say that is because of the following grep output which clearly shows that openssl/e_os.h is used more often than not. GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\demoCA GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\demoCA\private GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\set GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\bugs GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\certs GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\certs\expired GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\asn1 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bf bftest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bf\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bio bss_bio.c:#include openssl/e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn bntest.c:#include openssl/e_os.h exptest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\alpha GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\alpha.works GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\x86 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\buffer GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\cast casttest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\cast\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\comp GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\conf conf_api.c:#include openssl/e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des cfb_enc.c:#include openssl/e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\t GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\times GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dh dhtest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dsa dsatest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dso GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\err GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\evp GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\hmac hmactest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\idea ideatest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\lhash GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md2 md2test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md4 md4test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md5 md5test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md5\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\mdc2 mdc2test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\objects GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pem GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\perlasm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs12 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7\p7 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7\t GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rand md_rand.c:#include openssl/e_os.h randfile.c:#include openssl/e_os.h randfile.c:/* #define RFILE .rnd - defined in ../../e_os.h */ randtest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc2 rc2test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc4 rc4test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc4\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc5 rc5test.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc5\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\ripemd rmdtest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\ripemd\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rsa rsa_test.c:#include openssl/e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\sha sha1test.c:#include ../e_os.h shatest.c:#include ../e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\sha\asm GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\stack GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\threads mttest.c:#include ../../e_os.h th-lock.c:#include openssl/e_os.h GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\txt_db GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\x509 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\x509v3 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\bio GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\eay GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\maurice GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\pkcs12 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\prime GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\sign GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\ssl GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\state_machine GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\apps GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\crypto GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\ssl GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\inc32 GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\inc32\openssl GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\include GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\include\openssl GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\MacOS GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\MacOS\GetHTTPS.src GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\ms GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\out32dll GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\perl GLOBAL:
Packet overhead estimation
Hello, In order to estimate the (maximal) packet overhead which is added by OpenSSL, we do the following things: 1) We add up the header length: SSL3_RT_HEADER_LENGTH (5 bytes) 2) We add up the hash size: EVP_MD_size(..) (e.g. 16 bytes with MD5, 20 bytes with SHA) 3) We add up the block size of the cipher: EVP_CIPHER_CTX_block_size(...) (actually, only required in case of block ciphers because of padding) We are sure that there is no compression. Is this correct or should we take another approach? By the way, is the ciphers block_size set to 0, in case it is not a block cipher? Or can we distinguish block ciphers and stream ciphers for the calculation in a generic way? Regards - Marcel Vinzens __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
