How did you compile your program? OpenSSL is obviously compiled to link
with MSVCRT.LIB (multithreaded non-debugging library). That's what /MD
means. Is your applidation built the same way? If not, please do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed May 5 08:41:36 2004]:
Hi,
openssl
I'm not doubting the accuracy of the symptoms you have observed.
However, I do not agree with your analysis, since 'len' contains the
length of the contents 'from' points to, which remain unchanged. Still,
the pointer 'from' itself is changed directly after the cleanup in your
patch, and
[levitte - Thu May 6 11:21:31 2004]:
I'm not doubting the accuracy of the symptoms you have observed.
However, I do not agree with your analysis, since 'len' contains the
length of the contents 'from' points to, which remain unchanged.
Still,
the pointer 'from' itself is changed
Can anyone answer this? How do I tell if this is a known problem with OpenSSL or if
the RFC is incorrect, or if this is just a accepted deviation?
Erik Tkal
Principal Software Engineer
Funk Software, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-371-3980x123
Out the Token Ring, through the router,
I've handcoded
SSE2 SHA512_Transform which exhibits almost 6x performance improvement
[of course the result is preliminary] on P4 over gcc compiled code,
I've commited the code to CVS even though it's nowhere to plug it in for
the moment. The code is therefore subject to change as C
Here's a patch for d2i_SSL_SESSION.pod, pointing out a pitfall when using
i2d_SSL_SESSIONdiff -U3 -r1.1.1.2 d2i_SSL_SESSION.pod
--- doc/ssl/d2i_SSL_SESSION.pod 2002/07/30 18:26:08 1.1.1.2
+++ doc/ssl/d2i_SSL_SESSION.pod 2004/05/05 22:06:44
@@ -20,7 +20,10 @@
i2d_SSL_SESSION() transforms the
On Thursday 06 May 2004 08:45, Jim Schneider wrote:
Here's a patch for d2i_SSL_SESSION.pod, pointing out a pitfall when using
i2d_SSL_SESSION
Actually, that wasn't as clear as it should be - pp isn't getting clobbered,
what it points to (*pp) is getting clobbered.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 6 May 2004 08:24:57 -0400, Erik Tkal [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
etssl Can anyone answer this? How do I tell if this is a known
etssl problem with OpenSSL or if the RFC is incorrect, or if this is
etssl just a accepted deviation?
I can't really say, as that's
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Levitte - VMS
Whacker
on Thu, 6 May 2004 08:24:57 -0400, Erik Tkal said:
etssl Can anyone answer this? How do I tell if this is a known
etssl problem with OpenSSL or if the RFC is
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 6 May 2004 08:24:57 -0400, "Erik Tkal" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
etssl Can anyone answer this? How do I tell if this is a known
etssl problem with OpenSSL or if the RFC is incorrect, or if this is
etssl just a
Jeff,
Look ins3_srvr.c -
ssl3_send_certificate_requestcalls SSL_get_client_CA_list to get the stack
of CA names(assumedly set by other code having called
SSL_set_client_CA_list). However, if the server side code has not set this then
the stack is empty, so the code ends up setting the
I'm looking at the TLS 1.1
Internet-Draft and it reads:
7.4.4. Certificate request
When this message will be sent:
A non-anonymous server can optionally request a certificate from
the client, if appropriate for the selected cipher suite. This
message, if sent, will
Guys,
this ticket was last commented on almost a year ago. Is it still an
issue?
[jaenicke - Wed May 28 23:02:27 2003]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 25 09:42:02 2003]:
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote:
I think my machine has a decent set of patches but as I
Jeff, thanks, I sent that info to my customer,
hopefully he'll be ok with "most implementations tolerate it, you probably
should too".
Erik
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Altman
I'm looking at the TLS 1.1
Internet-Draft and it
14 matches
Mail list logo
