On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:24:01PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
To make it easier to understand what you're talking about, it would be
good to use terms like CFB-8, i.e. where the block size (in bits) is
included in the identity.
Okay. To make things clearer: I'm working on some
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
Those modes *require* that a multiple of {block_size} bytes get
through to get properly encrypted/decrypted.
In case I wasn't clear last time (rereading, I'm afraid I wasn't), the
above quoted text is wrong.
Nathan,
I've created a build for Win64, but it hasn't made it into the main dev code base yet
because the patches I created were not entirely complete - there are some larger
architectural issues regarding openssl's use of file handles. File (and socket)
handles have traditionally been small
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:26:00PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
I'm honestly unsure what you guys are talking about. Could it
confusion over the fact that we have only implemented CFB-xx and
OFB-xx, where xx is the block size of the underlying algorithm? This
means that
CTR-mode would need to call the appropriate ECB mode function. That
could be done without going through the EVP interface. Also, you could
probably implement counter mode purely with macros if the right data
items are in the cipher context, meaning that it wouldn't be any slower
than calling
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:10 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
viega Additionally, a lot of stuff built on counter mode is using a
few bits
viega of the counter for other purposes, so the effective counter
size is
viega less than the actual counter size. It would be nice
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 05:16 PM, Olaf Kirch via RT wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:24:01PM +0200, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
To make it easier to understand what you're talking about, it would be
good to use terms like CFB-8, i.e. where the block size (in bits) is
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:22 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 17 Oct 2002
14:15:22 -0400, John Viega [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm honestly unsure what you guys are talking about. Could it
confusion over the fact that we have only
Yes, it does indeed seem to be fixed. Seeing that OFB and CFB are
pretty fundamental, shouldn't a fix like that merit a b4 release,
particularly considering how long it's been since b3? :)
John
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 05:34 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:30 PM, Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:19:23 -0400, John Viega
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
viega viega Also, why isn't counter mode implemented in a generic
fashion?
viega It's
viega viega so
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:26:56AM -0400, John Viega wrote:
I did spend some time on this tonight. I essentially designed a
framework and built one test mode, OFB (I'll get to the rest of the
modes tomorrow). Two files are attached (mode.h and mode.c).
Thanks for your contribution. I have
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Oct 8 09:08:37 2002]:
using the config --prefix=/usr --openssldir=/usr/local/ssl -threads
command.
I do a sucessfull make
I then run make test and get a segmentation fault.
Please find attatched the output from a make report.
I am using openssl 9.6g
Redhat
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Sep 13 09:48:48 2002]:
Hi,
surprisngly I cannot find in FAQ at
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.cgi what is the default randfile
compiled into openssl binary. I have Solaris 2.6 with kernel module from
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~andi/ and I want to make sure it
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Oct 3 13:09:11 2002]:
Selon Ondrej Karpis via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have copied all header files from /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl to
/home/.../openssl-0.9.6g/include/openssl/ and it works.
I'll try to do this (Sorry if my english isn't good, but
[guest - Thu Sep 5 12:30:40 2002]:
This problem has been resolved.
int EVP_EncryptInit_ex(EVP_CIPHER_CTX *ctx, const EVP_CIPHER *type,
ENGINE *impl, unsigned char *key, unsigned char *iv);
EVP_EncryptInit_ex(ctx, EVP_bf_cbc(), NULL, key, iv);
In the example at
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Aug 26 10:31:09 2002]:
OpenSSL self-test report:
OpenSSL version: 0.9.6g
Last change: [In 0.9.6g-engine release:]...
Options: no-idea --prefix=/usr/local --openssldir=/usr/local/ssl
no-threads shared
OS (uname): Linux binky 2.4.19 #1 Fri Aug
[levitte - Mon Aug 19 11:33:34 2002]:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Aug 19 09:48:39 2002]:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:15:04PM +0200, OpenSSL Project wrote:
OpenSSL STATUS Last modified at
__ $Date: 2002/08/14
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Aug 18 12:30:48 2002]:
Here is some info on this subject
In crypto/rand/rand_win.c
RegQueryValueEx(HKEY_PERFORMANCE_DATA, Global, ...
is called. This call lock registry access
(_PredefinedHandleTableCriticalSection) and than load perfomance
dll using
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sat Aug 17 15:51:29 2002]:
...
You should take a closer look at 0.9.7 (currently in beta), where a
some of the stricter type handling has already been applied.
We will probably not apply your change to the 0.9.6 line of
development, because it's a rather big change,
Hi.
I am using OpenSSL 0.9.6g under Windows NT. I would like to report that OpenSSL does
NOT read the last line of the conf file if eol (cr) is not present.
Hope that someone will get use of it.
Get 250 full-color business cards
Is this now fixed for EVP_Encrypt() and EVP_Decrypt() or only the
xxInit,xxUpdate,xxFinal sequences? Or must I set padding off?
If this is resolved, I can go back and rerun the NIST AES certification
tests for CFB with 8 bit block sizes. Needless to say they failed before.
Chris Brook
In message 000a01c276a6$d5bda720$[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:04:02
-0400, Chris Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
cbrook Is this now fixed for EVP_Encrypt() and EVP_Decrypt() or only the
cbrook xxInit,xxUpdate,xxFinal sequences? Or must I set padding off?
cbrook If this is resolved, I
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Aug 2 17:50:30 2002]:
While compiling openssl-engine-0.9.6e as 64bit on Solaris 8 using gcc3.1,
I get the following error when performing 'make test'.
...
Any news on this issue? Especially: does it still apply to 0.9.6g?
Best regards,
Lutz
I am trying to compile the demo/ssl files with gcc 3.2 on RedHat 8 and
running into the following error:
gcc serv.cpp -o serv -lssl
/tmp/cc5JLIgx.o(.eh_frame+0x11): undefined reference to
`__gxx_personality_v0'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Not sure what this means. Is it a gcc or openssl
I compiled your C examples from the book and I get an error running
them. The error is :
client - Certificate doesn't verify
server - SSL read problem
I am using RedHat 8, with gcc 3.2 and openssl 0.9.6b-29.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I am not sure if it because I am not using a
Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
We will probably not apply your change to the 0.9.6 line of
development, because it's a rather big change, and we try to avoid
that within the same line of development (for now, 0.9.x is a line of
development, so 0.9.7 is a different one, as is 0.9.8 (in development
Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
We will probably not apply your change to the 0.9.6 line of
development, because it's a rather big change, and we try to avoid
that within the same line of development (for now, 0.9.x is a line of
development, so 0.9.7 is a different one, as is 0.9.8 (in development
I am working on a port of OpenSSL to an embedded O/S.
I cannot find the routine SSL_library_init() or its synonyms
OpenSSL_add_ssl_algorithms(),
SSLeay_add_ssl_algorithms(). Are these generated by the Makefile?
Is there a sample available so I can see what operations are performed by
this
29 matches
Mail list logo
