Questions on block size for ncbc_enc.c

Hi, I am using openssl-0.9.6h on Linux I put a extra followingline at line 79 of file crypto/des/ncbc_enc.c file: printf(length=%ld\n, length); just to check how the size of data come in. I tried on a file with 14392 bytes. for encrypt, the size coming are: 4096, 4096, 4096, 2104, 8 but

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:03:03 +0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro I have been working on appro BN assembler aided implementation that would need some benchmarking. It appro should give around 3x speed-up... appro appro Preliminary patch relative to

Re: Questions on block size for ncbc_enc.c

In message 014e01c2a1b6$7864b1a0$0591cf0a@shng on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:14:03 +0800, Ng Siak Hooi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: shng Hi, shng I am using openssl-0.9.6h on Linux shng I put a extra followingline at line 79 of file crypto/des/ncbc_enc.c shng file: shng printf(length=%ld\n, length);

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:44:04AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:03:03 +0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro I have been working on appro BN assembler aided implementation that would need some benchmarking. It

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:10:38 +0100, Peter Poeml [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: poeml appro Preliminary patch relative to 0.9.6h is available at poeml appro http://www.openssl.org/~appro/. Once it's confirmed to be working on poeml appro real hardware, it will be

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

appro I have been working on appro BN assembler aided implementation that would need some benchmarking. It appro should give around 3x speed-up... appro appro Preliminary patch relative to 0.9.6h is available at appro http://www.openssl.org/~appro/. Once it's confirmed to be working on

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:00:41PM +0100, Andy Polyakov wrote: appro I have been working on appro BN assembler aided implementation that would need some benchmarking. It appro should give around 3x speed-up... appro appro Preliminary patch relative to 0.9.6h is available at appro

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:03:03 +0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro I have been working on appro BN assembler aided implementation that would need some benchmarking. It appro should give

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:00:41 +0100, Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: appro Well, *if* this is supposed to be the last beta, then the only question appro is if we *dare* to merge the code directly into the final version, i.e. appro without exposing it in beta. I

Re: [PATCH] supporting the x86_64 architecture

appro Well, *if* this is supposed to be the last beta, then the only question appro is if we *dare* to merge the code directly into the final version, i.e. appro without exposing it in beta. I consider that we can dare to do so as appro long as SuSE Labs promise that they would double-check

DJGPP patch for openssl-0.9.7 (install_docs)

I have finally been able to debug the problem with make install_docs under DJGPP. Part of the problem relates to lack of symbolic links. The other has to do with filenames with different case actually referring to the same file (i.e. hmac.3 and HMAC.3 are the same file on a DOS/Windows system).

[openssl.org #398] AutoReply: DJGPP patch for openssl-0.9.7 (install_docs)

Greetings, This message has been automatically generated in response to the creation of a trouble ticket regarding: DJGPP patch for openssl-0.9.7 (install_docs), a summary of which appears below. There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been

TSU NOTIFICATION - cryptography

SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU SUBMITTED BY: Doug Kaufman SUBMITTED FOR: POINT OF CONTACT: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PHONE and/or FAX: MANUFACTURER: (if relevant) PRODUCT NAME/MODEL #: openssl-0.9.7 ECCN: 5D002 NOTIFICATION: The attached file is a patch for openssl, version 0.9.7,

Re: Bug in CRYPTO_get_new_dynlockid()

At 11:29 AM 12/11/02 -0500, Geoff Thorpe wrote: Hi there, * Bertie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 10:00 AM 12/11/02 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: bertie Yep, this solution works if you are an application developer bertie wanting to use chil engine. This is not much help if you are

Re: Bug in CRYPTO_get_new_dynlockid()

I've been thinking about the whole static vs. dynamic lock situation, and I must say I have some difficulty seeing a good way out of it. The two variants serve similar purposes, but have one crucial difference, and it's that the static ones are pre-initialised. If everything was converted to use

Re: Bug in CRYPTO_get_new_dynlockid()

If everything was converted to use dynamic locks, I wonder where those locks would be created and initialised? Shall we have yet another startup function, say OpenSSL_init(), that does this (BTW, we really should have that anyway, so we have something that does all those startup things that

[openssl.org #397] ld: Undefined symbols: _OPENSSL_cleanse OS X 10.2.2

I believe you need to read the file PROBLEMS. If what's written there helps, please tell us. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Dec 11 09:16:10 2002]: I got the error below after running make. % cd /usr/local/src/openssl-0.9.6h % ./config % make snip ld: Undefined symbols: _OPENSSL_cleanse

[openssl.org #396] Re: AES cipher?

[jaenicke - Wed Dec 11 09:15:59 2002]: It's there, you just didn't note: ljaenicke@lutz:~/newsoft/openssl-0.9.7-beta4/ssl$ grep RSA_WITH_AES_128 * s3_lib.c: TLS1_TXT_RSA_WITH_AES_128_SHA, s3_lib.c: TLS1_CK_RSA_WITH_AES_128_SHA, s3_lib.c:

[openssl.org #361] Re: OpenSSL and compression using ZLIB

I made the necessary changes in c_zlib.c a few days ago. Please test it and if there are errors, report that as a new ticket. This one is now resolve. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Nov 25 09:50:34 2002]: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-compression-03.txt defines the

Re: [openssl.org #396] Re: AES cipher?

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:41:50PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: I believe we can trace that back to ssl2.h, and remember that in SSL v2, there was only RSA for authentication... Is this enough to resolve the ticket, or at least give it the milestone 0.9.8? I'll leave it open for the

Re: [openssl.org #396] Re: AES cipher?

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:41:50PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: I believe we can trace that back to ssl2.h, and remember that in SSL v2, there was only RSA for authentication... Is this enough to resolve the ticket, or at least give it the milestone 0.9.8? I'll leave it open for the

[openssl.org #272] BN gives wrong result for mod_exp (all forms)

Gotten anywhere? Is this part of the things you and I have discussed today? [appro - Mon Dec 9 14:46:00 2002]: I managed to reproduce the problem and am looking into it. A. -- Richard Levitte __ OpenSSL Project

[openssl.org #290] OpenSSL make problems

Any further work on this? [jaenicke - Wed Sep 25 22:37:07 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Sep 24 10:23:50 2002]: Hi, I am trying to install openssl on AIX using gcc GCC version - 2.95.3 20010315 (release) AIX version - 4.3.2.0 OpenSSL version - 0.9.7-dev The output of config

[openssl.org #353] 0.9.7 B4 testssl with no-dh fails

Change committed. This ticket is now resolved. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mon Dec 9 17:55:16 2002]: These tests within testssl still fail with 0.9.7 Beta 5 if OPENSSL_NO_DH is included in the Configure options, when make tests is run. Suggested fix is attached (though this may be auto-created).

RE: [openssl.org #272] BN gives wrong result for mod_exp (all forms)

ummm... I think you sent this to the wrong person... I reported the bug. David. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Levitte via RT Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #272] BN gives wrong result for mod_exp (allforms)

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:17:52 +0100 (MET), David Asher via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt ummm... I think you sent this to the wrong person... I reported the bug. Don't worry about it. You're the registered requestor, that's why you got a copy directly. Andy is a

Re: [openssl.org #272] BN gives wrong result for mod_exp (all forms)

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:17:52 +0100 (MET), David Asher via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt ummm... I think you sent this to the wrong person... I reported the bug. Don't worry about it. You're the registered requestor, that's why you got a copy directly. Andy is a

[openssl.org #370] Duplicate manuals in 0.9.7-stable

I think I resolved it. I'm a little unsure if I got all the info from BIO_new_bio_pair.pod to BIO_s_bio.pod right... [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 29 15:22:58 2002]: I just started working on making symlinks for all names in the NAME section of every .pod file we're converting into manpages.

Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32)?

I can see that happening. Would the following patch help? Index: ssl/ssl_ciph.c === RCS file: /e/openssl/cvs/openssl/ssl/ssl_ciph.c,v retrieving revision 1.33.2.3 diff -u -u -r1.33.2.3 ssl_ciph.c --- ssl/ssl_ciph.c 19 Jul 2002

Re: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32) ?

I can see that happening. Would the following patch help? Index: ssl/ssl_ciph.c === RCS file: /e/openssl/cvs/openssl/ssl/ssl_ciph.c,v retrieving revision 1.33.2.3 diff -u -u -r1.33.2.3 ssl_ciph.c --- ssl/ssl_ciph.c 19 Jul 2002

IMPORTANT: The release of 0.9.7 beta 6 is postponed

We should have release beta 6 today. However, some important changes haven't been committed or verified yet, so we need to delay the release. The new release time will be on Tuesday the 17th of December. We haven't yet decided when the final release of 0.9.7 shall be at this point. -- Richard

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl CHANGES

Not entirely true. I implemented the dynamic locks on Windows in Kermit 95. I do not have any hardware to test it with though. + *) The hw_ncipher.c engine requires dynamic locks. Unfortunately, it + seems that in spite of existing for more than a year, no application + author

[openssl.org #399] OpenSSL compiled DLL's

Dear All, I would like to configure OpenSSL on Apache server which installed on Microsoft windows .Apache Server required compiled DLL's from OpenSSL source code to implement SSL. For compiling this source code on windows is lengthy process and tedious also. So please let me know where can I

Re: [CVS] OpenSSL: openssl CHANGES

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:34:07 -0500, Jeffrey Altman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: jaltman Not entirely true. I implemented the dynamic locks on jaltman Windows in Kermit 95. I do not have any hardware to test it jaltman with though. OK, I've now made a small change to

[openssl.org #399] OpenSSL compiled DLL's

[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Dec 13 07:34:55 2002]: Dear All, I would like to configure OpenSSL on Apache server which installed on Microsoft windows .Apache Server required compiled DLL's from OpenSSL source code to implement SSL. For compiling this source code on windows is lengthy

[openssl.org #290] OpenSSL make problems

[levitte - Thu Dec 12 19:23:44 2002]: Any further work on this? No more information received. I therefore consider the problem to be gone. Ticket resolved, Lutz __ OpenSSL Project