Hello OpenSL Team,
After running a successful
./config --prefix=/usr --openssldir=/usr no-asm
of openssl-0.9.6g, I tried to run the make. Here is the results:
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/libssl.dylib load command 8 unknown cmd field
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/libcrypto.dylib load command 7 unknown cmd
I am compiling OpenSSL on Windows 2000. I read INSTALL.W32 that came with
the source. I had a successful compile using Mingw32. Further down in
INSTALL.W32 I see the following note...
libcrypto.a and libssl.a are the static libraries. To use the DLLs,
link with libeay32.a and libssl32.a
Can it be shown that this is a problem at a TLS level? I'd hate to
make the proposed change just to discover that it breaks
interoperability with other TLS clients and servers.
Unless you can show that this incompatibility (which is very easy to
deal with, BTW) creates an error, I can't
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Aug 21 22:21:52 2002]:
When configuring OpenSSL 0.9.6g for solaris-sparcv8-gcc/solaris-x86-
gcc
shared, the way the shared libcrypto.so and libssl.so are built is
wrong:
* gcc is invoked with gcc -G, but unfortunately this doesn't
Please try the latest
I forgot to append this dump. I have tried to verify that the application
does not send those 24 bytes by placing breakpoints on every call to
SSL_write()
1 9 0.2855 (0.) CSV3.0(1) ChangeCipherSpec
1 10 0.2855 (0.) CSV3.0(64) Handshake Finished
md5_hash[16]=
15 3b 46 16 dc d6 2d 50
I am using OpenSSL 0.9.6d. The application uses a Win32 compile, but this
problem has been demonstrated under a FreeBSD compile too.
I was doing application development (not the topic of this email)
interacting with an IBM developed SSL library. I experienced unexpected
disconnects immediately
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:17:32
+0100 (MET), Quinn Moo via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt After running a successful
rt
rt ./config --prefix=/usr --openssldir=/usr no-asm
rt
rt of openssl-0.9.6g, I tried to run the make. Here is the results:
rt
rt /usr/bin/ld:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:57:10
+0100 (MET), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt What about trying to do the following before running nmake:
rt
rt C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .Net\VC7\bin\VCVARS32
rt
rt If this doesn't work,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:57:10
+0100 (MET), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt What about trying to do the following before running nmake:
rt
rt C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .Net\VC7\bin\VCVARS32
rt
rt If this doesn't work,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:14:54PM -0800, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote:
I am using OpenSSL 0.9.6d. The application uses a Win32 compile, but this
problem has been demonstrated under a FreeBSD compile too.
I was doing application development (not the topic of this email)
interacting with an IBM
Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 8 12:19:04 2002]:
Dear all,
I identified that the Documentation in doc/apps/x509.pod is wrong if
passed through pod2latex.
The line
=head1 NAME OPTIONS
causes a wrong representation in the tex-File (and maybe in others
too)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:24:16
+0100 (MET), Ernst G Giessmann via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Run in your doc/apps directory
rt
rt fgrep =head1 NAME *.pod
rt
rt you'll get
rt
rt CA.pl.pod:=head1 NAME
rt asn1parse.pod:=head1 NAME
rt ...more files
rt
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:24:16
+0100 (MET), Ernst G Giessmann via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Run in your doc/apps directory
rt
rt fgrep =head1 NAME *.pod
rt
rt you'll get
rt
rt CA.pl.pod:=head1 NAME
rt asn1parse.pod:=head1 NAME
rt ...more files
rt
I just applied the patch and committed. Please test tomorrows
snapshot.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Nov 12 22:31:27 2002]:
Here are some patches for MSDOS and djgpp using Watt-32 tcp/ip
stack.
Patch against snapshot 11-Nov 2002.
1. sock_init() renamed to
-Urspr üngliche Nachricht-
Von: Lutz Jaenicke via RT [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 14. November 2002 12:15
An: Giessmann, Ernstg
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: [openssl.org #333] x509.pod
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Nov 14 11:47:20 2002]:
In
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:02:28AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
openssl-0.9.6-stable-SNAP-200211xx.tar.gz non-engine version
[...]
openssl-0.9.7-stable-SNAP-200211xx.tar.gz
Hi,
a few problems.
The Configure script still uses the old deprecated -m486 instead of the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:53:03
+0100, Corinna Vinschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
vinschen The Configure script still uses the old deprecated -m486 instead of the
vinschen -march=i486 option:
Patch applied.
vinschen The Cygwin build script in the util subdir suffers
Good idea. Done.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Sep 27 11:17:57 2002]:
I write to ask if you can kindly supply such a FAQ
E.g.
We provide MD5 digests and ASC signatures of each tarball.
Use MD5 to check that a tarball from a mirror site is identical,
e.g.
Richard,
Thank you for your response.
sjm
Message History
From: Richard Levitte via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED]@serv01.aet.tu-cottbus.de on
11/14/2002 12:54 AM CET
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DELEGATED
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I
tracked this down to the addition of
I've reduced -O3 to -O1.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Jun 23 16:44:16 2002]:
hi,
i try to compile openssl 0.9.6d and 0.9.7-beta2 under AIX 5.1 (ML
510002) in a 64Bit environment with gcc-2.9AIX51.xx.
when i run 'make test' the following errors appear:
Generate a
I would also suggest this not get changed in the 0.9.6 branch. I'm
even dubious about changing it in the 0.9.7 branch. The reason is
that such a change breaks the current test scripts, and then I can
only guess what other people's scripts will do.
The current solution is instead to parse
Lütz, did you get anywhere with this?
[jaenicke - Tue Jul 23 15:13:25 2002]:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jul 23 15:07:51 2002]:
The problem is that SSL_shutdown() returns 0 with
SSL_get_error()
==
SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL in both cases.
The first 0 is ok. The second 0 is not ok, it may
Hi,
I recently received this email from the Bugtraq mailing list, and was
wondering if it was relevant to OpenSSL. I checked the README and INSTALL
files from version 0.9.6g and there doesn't appear to be anything relevant.
Regards,
Adrian
- Original Message -
From: Michael Wojcik
[levitte - Thu Nov 14 15:31:34 2002]:
Lütz, did you get anywhere with this?
No. I didn't have the time to look into it. And I don't know, whether
I will find the time before next week. Maybe some hours are available
on Saturday and/or Sunday...
Best regards,
Lutz
I can't recall having gotten a response. However, since this has
been tested by a bunch of others, I'll resolve this ticket.
[levitte - Fri Oct 11 00:01:54 2002]:
The question was, in what way does your patch make things better?
Since there was no answer for quite a while, I assumed the
These are based on the 1113 snapshot. The first two are warnings, but the
compiler options being used treat warnings as errors.
crypto/aes/aes_cbc.c at lines 84 and 106 need a typecast to avoid
signed/unsigned mismatch warning:
for(n=0; n len; ++n)
becomes:
for(n=0; n (int)len;
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002
02:28:11 +1100, Steven Reddie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
OK, I've committed fixes. Please try again tomorrow (the 1114
snapshot will be ready then).
smr These are based on the 1113 snapshot. The first two are warnings, but the
smr compiler options
Yes, that's better.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:owner-openssl-dev;openssl.org]On Behalf Of Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker
Sent: Friday, 15 November 2002 2:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fixes for some Windows build failures
In message
Patch applied, thanks. Please test tomorrow's snapshots.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Aug 2 10:52:26 2002]:
Hi,
Here's a patch that will provide compilation options on Tandem OSS
Non-Stop
Kernel.
The patches are made on config and Configure so a simple
This ticket is now resolved.
[levitte - Fri Oct 11 10:18:21 2002]:
This ticket appears to be resolvable, but to be safe, I'll ask: is
this still an issue?
[guest - Fri Aug 16 11:04:41 2002]:
Note that the solaris-sparcv9-cc and solaris-sparcv9-gcc
configurations
actually use just
The CVSWeb link at the top of
http://www.openssl.org/source/
is broken. How can I browse the
source?
Do you have the possibility to help out with this? The help needed
would be to tell us exactly what assembler lines are incorrect, so
we can hack the Perl code appropriately, or perhaps direct help with
said Perl code.
A quick solution is to configure with no-asm...
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can it be shown that this is a problem at a TLS level? I'd hate to
make the proposed change just to discover that it breaks
interoperability with other TLS clients and servers.
RFC 2246 is very vague:
8.1.2. Diffie-Hellman
A
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:54:21
+0100 (MET), Jack Lloyd via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Looks like the 1.1 TLS draft spec uses the same wording. Perhaps someone
rt should contact the TLS WG and ask for a clarification on this issue? [I'll
rt do it if nobody else is
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:54:21
+0100 (MET), Jack Lloyd via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Looks like the 1.1 TLS draft spec uses the same wording. Perhaps someone
rt should contact the TLS WG and ask for a clarification on this issue? [I'll
rt do it if nobody else is
When is once? I just checked, and ca.c has not changed in any way
that would give that kind of message since 0.9.6...
Could it be something wrong with index.txt?
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Aug 26 10:31:09 2002]:
OpenSSL self-test report:
OpenSSL version: 0.9.6g
Last change: [In
Bodo, if you haven't had more correspondence on this ticket, you
probably should resolve it...
[bodo - Thu Aug 29 13:08:00 2002]:
Can you elaborate what you think is buggy?
'make test' still succeeds if you substitute 10 for
SSL3_RT_MAX_PLAIN_LENGTH in ssl3_write_bytes (ssl/s3_pkt.c),
[levitte - Thu Nov 14 15:13:32 2002]:
I would also suggest this not get changed in the 0.9.6 branch. I'm
even dubious about changing it in the 0.9.7 branch. The reason is
that such a change breaks the current test scripts, and then I can
only guess what other people's scripts will do.
I don't recall what happened to the other email thread, but I also submitted
patches for that issue as well. The idea is to keep the OpenSSL internal data
structures in ASCII. So I patched a couple of the conf routines to translate
EBCDIC (read from a config file) into ASCII, etc. You need to do
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
Can it be shown that this is a problem at a TLS level? I'd hate to
make the proposed change just to discover that it breaks
interoperability with other TLS clients and servers.
RFC 2246 is very vague:
8.1.2. Diffie-Hellman
A
The OBJ_txt2obj() problem has already been solved. The EVP reinit
problem is very easy to solve, actually. Somply remove the flag
variable, which is exactly what has been decided within the team.
I'm sure many will scream at this decision. However, think about
it, the only way that flag
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Thu Sep 5 09:23:59 2002]:
This patch is a replacement for RT/openssl.org: Ticket #237. Please
retract Ticket #237.
The following patch provides basic support for Subject Directory
Attributes, which are defined in the x509 spec (RFC 2459), but are
currently
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Michael Bell wrote:
Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
I've got some prototype code that allows arbitrary structures to be added to
extensions, from the config file.
It should allow the Win2000 smartcardlogin extensions to be added and just
about anything else.
Where
Thanks. The patch is applied and committed.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun Sep 1 19:15:59 2002]:
I have found that OpenSSL version 0.9.6g (or earlier) on Windows
can
cause a problem that will prevent Window's
Disk Administrator from being able to delete a logical
Applied to the 0.9.6 branch.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Sep 6 09:43:56 2002]:
Just a quick update... I should have submitted this *long* ago.
The below patch allows for OpenSSL under A/UX.
--- Configure.origThu Aug 22 15:10:28 2002
+++ Configure Thu Sep 5
This ticket looks resolved, so I'll mark it as such.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Sep 18 16:07:15 2002]:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 04:03:26PM +0200, Steve Haslam via RT
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:18:22AM +0200, Lutz Jaenicke via RT
wrote:
Workaround: the problem is does not
The only conclusion I can make is that something went wrong during
transfer or unpacking of the OpenSSL distribution.
A freshly downloaded copy looks fine to me; I agree that something
must have gone wrong with the unpacking at my end.
thanks,
Thanks.
This ticket is now resolved.
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 15 01:13:20 2002]:
The only conclusion I can make is that something went wrong during
transfer or unpacking of the OpenSSL distribution.
A freshly downloaded copy looks fine to me; I agree that something
must have gone
Test of snapshots for 13 November 2002
Tests that were performed:
- configuration and build
- test suite
- installation (be wise and do it in some temporary directory)
Optional things would be to test the following:
- build and run mod_ssl with the new installation
Using mod_ssl 2.8.12 and
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:00:37PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote:
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]:
JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed
that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The
openssl(1) binary wouldn't
Sounds good.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Levitte via RT [mailto:rt;openssl.org]
Sent: Friday, 15 November 2002 10:25 AM
To: Reddie, Steven
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [openssl.org #261] [PATCHes] OpenSSL 0.9.6g: OBJ_txt2obj, EVP
reinitialisation
The OBJ_txt2obj() problem has
Thanks for doing the tests. I discoevered the AES problem myself
yesterday, and I believe that the 1114 snapshot should work better, at
least in that respect, so if you're willing, I'd like you to do the
0.9.7 tests again.
And yes, the more platforms the merrier :-).
In message [EMAIL
53 matches
Mail list logo
