Bruce, unless you give me something else to go on, I'll change the
state of this ticket to resolved, on thursday.
[levitte - Sat Aug 10 02:58:49 2002]:
According to your log, that's 0.9.6e you're talking about. In
0.9.6f and 0.9.6g, The function OpenSSLDie() doesn't exist at all.
This ticket is currently stalled. Is this still an issue, or can I
change the state of this ticket to resolved?
[levitte - Wed Jun 5 16:37:51 2002]:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4 19:47:39 2002]:
Building 0.9.7 (snapshot from June 1) with Cygwin led to several
warnings during
[NOTE: the following are my thoughts and my thoughts only. Other
members of the OpenSSL development team may have the same opinions, or
different ones]
OK, I've started to take a look at the PKCS#11 patches the have been
contributed. As far as I've been able to see, there are three
Line 14 in util/pod2mantest should read:
try_without_dir=true
otherwise 'first iteration' in the for-loop is never executed.
giovari
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development
Hello,
We have implemented an engine for our CRP310 and CRP410 SSL hardware
accelerator devices. This card supports up to now RSA, DSA, DH and RAND.
I will send you a patchfile for openssl-0.9.7beta3 with all changes in
./crypto/engine. We have a patch for the older versions 0.9.6 too.
Should
Richard,
This is embarrassing. The build scripts that I created were pulling in the
wrong source code. I build OpenSSL on many different platforms, with many
build scripts, and I was trying to do a fast job...
Thank you for your reply, and this bug should be thrown out...
Thanks again,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Geoff Thorpe via RT wrote:
yup, I fixed some similar things in [RSA|DSA|etc]_free() functions a
while ago. Those cases were more clear-cut though, because the
structures in question had virtual-function tables (methods) with
finish() handlers
Thanks. This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Aug 13 15:02:15 2002]:
Richard,
This is embarrassing. The build scripts that I created were
pulling in the
wrong source code. I build OpenSSL on many different platforms,
with many
build scripts, and I was trying to do
Hi There
I was wondering if there is any current workaround or
any proposed date when the issue with des_encrypt1
will be fixed.
I have tried versions 0.9.6c and 0.9.6g, both versions
exhibit the problem where a clash with libcrypt.a
occurs.
I saw mention of changing the case of the des part
In the case 'sun4u*-*-solaris2 stating on line 567 of file config, OUT is set to
'solaris-sparcv9-$CC' even if ISA64 does not contain sparcv9.
I do not think this is done deliberately.
giovari
__
OpenSSL Project
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Aug 13 15:43:45 2002]:
Hi There
I was wondering if there is any current workaround or
any proposed date when the issue with des_encrypt1
will be fixed.
The problem has been fixed in the upcoming 0.9.7 release.
There will not be a fix for 0.9.6x, as it might break
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
This ticket is currently stalled. Is this still an issue, or can I
change the state of this ticket to resolved?
The fix was committed in mid July. You can change the status to
resolved.
Doug
__
Doug Kaufman
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
The answer to your questions is 'yes'. As I understand it, the
patches were released as they are for the time being because it is
better to crash your application then allow the attacker to compromise
your computer.
New patches will have to be
I understand the manual side. I was wondering if there is any way to make
the option conditional in testssl.com so you don't have to mod the code. Or
should I just comment out the lines I don't want?
Sorry to be a nuisance.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Bodo Moeller wrote:
Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As noted elsewhere, I really object to returning internal errors!
It makes no sense to attempt to continue after the impossible has
occurred.
If we could be absolutely sure that these events are strictly
impossible, then it
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:10:34PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
Bodo Moeller wrote:
Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As noted elsewhere, I really object to returning internal errors!
It makes no sense to attempt to continue after the impossible has
occurred.
If we could be absolutely sure that
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 07:45:30PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:10:34PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
Yes, and the application will continue as if it were sensible to do so.
In fact it *is* often sensible to do so because such supposedly
impossible events are triggered
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 08:09:02PM +0200, Lutz Jaenicke wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 07:45:30PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:10:34PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
Yes, and the application will continue as if it were sensible to do so.
In fact it *is* often sensible to
In message 002101c242e9$a07a54a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:51:09
-0400, Chris Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
cbrook I understand the manual side. I was wondering if there is any way to make
cbrook the option conditional in testssl.com so you don't have to mod the code. Or
cbrook
19 matches
Mail list logo
