Oh. That could account for the problem if OpenSSL is using the release
build of the multi-threaded DLL's and my build of tunala is using the debug
ones. I assume that was on the release build that you changed it,
right? If on the debug build it should be correct to use the debug
SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU
SUBMITTED BY: Tim Rice
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 patch applies to openssl-0.9.7. The source
code is
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003, Himanshu Soni wrote:
I am running IE 6.0 with cipher strength of 128 bit. Is there an additional
security patch that I need to install even if the About Box says that its
128 bit?
No you should be OK if it says 128 bit. Can you decrypt 128 bit RC2 encrypted
messages
Dear OpenSSL developers,
I am Vladimir E. Shklover, senior software engineer at SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.
We are
developing client-server application with SSL connection on different platforms. Our
application
relies on shared rather than static libraries, libssl.so libcrypto.so in
128 Bit rc2 also fails on windows 98. Openssl can successfully decrypt
the message on windows 98.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dr. Stephen Henson
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 10:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problem
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
NOTIFICATION: The attached patch applies to openssl-0.9.7.
Does it really have to be so complicated? I mean all you have to do is
Perhaps not. I just pulld some code from the FreeBSD section.
to tell i386 and none-i386 apart, right?
Current version,
openssl-0.9.7, does not support shared libraries on AIX platform.
To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
treatment? I mean SHAREDFLAGS being hardcoded directly in Makefile.org?
Just wondering...
I am sending you the changes
which allow to
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:26:40
+0100 (MET), Andy Polyakov via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Current version,
rt openssl-0.9.7, does not support shared libraries on AIX platform.
rt
rt To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
rt treatment?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:26:40
+0100 (MET), Andy Polyakov via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Current version,
rt openssl-0.9.7, does not support shared libraries on AIX platform.
rt
rt To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
rt
Config was adding 386 to the Configure line causing the build
to fail on the assembler modules.
in what way?
Not really.
So you mean that it's not like it fails, but generates not optimal code.
Minimum processor on any current UnixWare is a pentium.
The older
rt To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
rt treatment? I mean SHAREDFLAGS being hardcoded directly in Makefile.org?
rt Just wondering...
Well, that one is an experiment.
Then why AIX specific flags like -bnogc, -bE:lib$$i.exp, -bM:SRE?
rt and aix43-cc.
rt
[[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Jan 17 18:58:35 2003]:
Oh. That could account for the problem if OpenSSL is using the
release
build of the multi-threaded DLL's and my build of tunala is using the
debug
ones. I assume that was on the release build that you changed it,
right? If on the debug
1)I didn't give any preference to aix-cc; I just changed
in config script the default CC=gcc to CC=cc for AIX case only.
That is, if config script assigned the default compiler
as aix43-gcc (as it does on our AIX machine), it will now assign
aix43-cc because the prefix was not touched.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:01:39
+0100 (MET), Andy Polyakov via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt rt To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
rt rt treatment? I mean SHAREDFLAGS being hardcoded directly in Makefile.org?
rt rt Just wondering...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:01:39
+0100 (MET), Andy Polyakov via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt rt To openssl-dev mainly. How come did do_aix-shared deserve so special
rt rt treatment? I mean SHAREDFLAGS being hardcoded directly in Makefile.org?
rt rt Just wondering...
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Config was adding 386 to the Configure line causing the build
to fail on the assembler modules.
in what way?
Not really.
So you mean that it's not like it fails, but generates not optimal code.
No, it fails.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Config was adding 386 to the Configure line causing the build
to fail on the assembler modules.
in what way?
Not really.
So you mean that it's not like it fails, but generates not optimal code.
No, it
17 matches
Mail list logo
