Re: Requests for Build changes

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: From: amanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] amanda The domain openssl.org now belongs to a US company (Red Hat), amanda so you could say that the project has already moved, to amanda "enemy" territory! Say *what*? How about checking the facts before you blurt

Re: Requests for Build changes

From: Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ben It's true. openssl.org belongs to C2, who have been bought by RH. Ah, OK. I thought C2 just kindly hosted the name service, which would be different. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chairman@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \

a bit of RSA keyshares generator

Hi, OpenSSL might benefit implementing secret-sharing and related algorithms, maybe step-by-step. Attached is an implementation of share of private exponent calculation provided share of (p-1)(q-1). Well, it is demonstrated here without shares but still does not involve inverse unknown modulo.

Re: s/mime

apps/smime.c contain code, documentation seem to be somewhat nonexisting/unstructured so the source was more useful for me at least. ObPatch: Could someone comment on this? 2000-07-23 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * crypto/pkcs7/pk7_mime.c (SMIME_write_PKCS7): Remove spurious \r

Re: s/mime

Simon Josefsson wrote: apps/smime.c contain code, documentation seem to be somewhat nonexisting/unstructured so the source was more useful for me at least. I've got some plain text docs for the stuff I originally did for Celo. I haven't found time to convert to pod yet. ObPatch: Could

[STATUS] OpenSSL (Sun 20-Aug-2000)

OpenSSL STATUS Last modified at __ $Date: 2000/07/02 21:11:11 $ DEVELOPMENT STATE o OpenSSL 0.9.6: Under development... o OpenSSL 0.9.5a: Released on April 1st, 2000 o OpenSSL 0.9.5: Released on February

Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

I'm trying to integrate OpenSSL into a nonblocking server that already has a firm idea of how it wants to do its networking. In other words, I want to use OpenSSL, but *do not* want OpenSSL doing any networking for me. I also don't want to use any huge, ungainly abstractions such as BIO pairs.

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

I agree with you 100% adn I'm in the same boat. I suggest that if we can't get people on board that we just go our own way. I'll be happy to work with you on this and you can reply directly and to the list. The problem is that at this point IMHO the product is designed to fit into a client

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you 100% adn I'm in the same boat. I suggest that if we can't get people on board that we just go our own way. Whatever we come up with, I'm sure the classic OpenSSL API could be layered on top of it. Perhaps we could consider this effort an

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

Ben Laurie wrote: I've obviously missed something ... what problem are you trying to solve? Check my original post (I'm copying it below). We're unhappy with OpenSSL's support for nonblocking I/O on servers; currently, it either wants you to rewrite your server to let OpenSSL handle the

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Dan Kegel wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you 100% adn I'm in the same boat. I suggest that if we can't get people on board that we just go our own way. Whatever we come up with, I'm sure the classic OpenSSL API could be layered on top of it.

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatever we come up with, I'm sure the classic OpenSSL API could be layered on top of it. Perhaps we could consider this effort an experimental refactoring of the OpenSSL codebase to improve its quality and reusability. I agree with this approach. The

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

In any event, if we design the proper underlying data structures to accomodate what we want - then all we need to do is pass this data structure into the proper state engine and the state engine can find the parameters the low level subs need and call them. It can even do this in a

Re: Nonblocking again. Don't want OpenSSL to do any networking.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup - I think we can contain this quite easily. I'll grab the new source tree asap and start looking over it with you. WHere we need to start is a proper design for the datastructures. I like creating a group of function calls with a not too long mnemonic...

Re: Cannot Compile

Dear root. step 1. Learn how to use email. If you went echo "I get an error when I try to compile openssl" | mail -s 'Cannot Compile' [EMAIL PROTECTED] then log out of root b4 doing so :) step 2. Learn as much about compilation as possible ;) step 3. Attach more info when posting such

Re: How to compile

man gcc Crispin On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, montinip@libero. wrote: Hi all, I am working on a project in which I need to use RSA and RNG functions. If I run gcc -S nomefile.c everything works. But when I run gcc nomefile.c errors about undefinied functions appears : there is a problem when