Re: [openssl.org #124] [PATCH] OS/2 shared build support

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:49:18 +1000 (EST), Brian Havard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: brianh Applied to the 0.9.7 branch as well as HEAD. Thanks. brianh brianh Cool, though a new problem has been introduced (not directly related to the brianh ticket). In

[openssl.org #148] Re: 0.9.7 PATCH (strcasecmp)

Actually, I found that strcasecmp() is often declared in strings.h, so it still needs to be included in most places. Therefore, I applied your original patch. This ticket is now resolved. [levitte - Tue Jul 16 09:03:42 2002]: Quick question: does string.h in Unixware define strcasecmp()?

Re: zencod engine for openssl 0.9.6x 0.9.7

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:10:58 -0400 (EDT), Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: geoff 0.9.6* releases are strictly for bug-fixes, so that is out of geoff the question. 0.9.7 is already in beta-testing so I'd similarly geoff doubt inclusion of anything new in there -

[openssl.org #73] make failing under MAC OS X (darwin)

This most likely yet again the problem with the way ld works on MacOS X. I'll attach the PROBLEMS file that has a section about this particular problem and possible solutions. I hereby consider this ticket resolved. [jaenicke - Tue Jun 11 13:55:44 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 4

[openssl.org #104] Make fails with undefined reference

Has this problem been dealt with yet? [jaenicke - Tue Jun 18 12:30:24 2002]: On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 07:43:18PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote: redhat linux never upgraded libraries are rpm's glibc-2.1.92-14 and glibc-devel-2.1.92-14. it's redhat 7.0. I think sysconf is

[openssl.org #118] How to implement OPENssl on AS 400

I've seen no further communications on this subject. Has this issue been dealt with? Is there a change that we should apply, or shall we just kill this ticket? [jaenicke - Tue Jun 25 22:25:56 2002]: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Jun 25 20:51:20 2002]: Hello friend, I am working for IBM

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIMEspec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:17:41 +0200, Bodo Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: moeller I think this is wrong. moeller moeller The output file is opened in text mode (not binary), so on systems moeller where line ends are usually CRLF, the \r\n will result in CR CR LF

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:17:41 +0200, Bodo Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: moeller I think this is wrong. moeller moeller The output file is opened in text mode (not binary), so on systems moeller where line ends are usually CRLF, the \r\n will result in CR CR LF

[openssl.org #125] [Enhancement] --certdir option for cert/key directory

Often, the cert/key directory is not used at all; otherwise it should be easy to use symbolic links to get the desired effect. Thus it should be possible to do without the '--certdir' patch. A reason for *not* introducing '--certdir' is that the '--prefix'/'--openssldir' situation is already a

[openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

I've reversed the patch. Bodo is correct, it's not OpenSSL's responsability to do the various conversions that may be done by the C run-time library anyway. If there are problems passing the resulting file to some library that expects the formating to CRLF line ends in a text file, the

[openssl.org #50] openssl-0.9.6d 'make test' fails (gcc, Solaris)

In similar configurations with gcc version 2.95.2, I observe none of these problems. This suggests that the problems may be due to compiler bugs in your gcc version; please try gcc 2.95.2 or a different newer release and report if the problems persist.

[openssl.org #118] How to implement OPENssl on AS 400

This is not a report on an actual problem in OpenSSL, and there has been no updated to the original request since June 25th; so nothing to do for us about this at the moment. __ OpenSSL Project

[openssl.org #149] [PATCH] apps/ca.c crl issuer patch

apps/ca.c has now been changed as suggested; thanks for the patch. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager

shatest.c - SHA_Update()

Hi all, I am looking into the shatest.c file since i want to make use of sha-1 message digest. In this file openssl-0.9.6d/crypto/sha/shatest.c, 141 for (i=0; i1000; i++) 142 SHA_Update(c,buf,1000); 143 SHA_Final(md,c); For chunks of data we can call

[openssl.org #47] RC4 test failure

It's in the middle of the afternoon, so I'm resolving this ticket. I've mailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the whole issue. Whenever I get a good answer, I'll make appropriate changes. Until then, MacOS X will simply need to be tweaked before one can compile OpenSSL on it. [levitte - Wed Jul

Re: shatest.c - SHA_Update()

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 05:06:20PM +0530, Srinivas Cheruku wrote: I am looking into the shatest.c file since i want to make use of sha-1 message digest. In this file openssl-0.9.6d/crypto/sha/shatest.c, 141 for (i=0; i1000; i++) 142 SHA_Update(c,buf,1000);

Re: Moving towards autoconf

Thus spake Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:33:09 -0500, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: stephen I'd like to take on moving OpenSSL towards an autoconf stephen system. First of all, if anyone else is working on this, stephen please

Re: [openssl.org #124] [PATCH] OS/2 shared build support

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:22:49 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:49:18 +1000 (EST), Brian Havard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: brianh Applied to the 0.9.7 branch as well as HEAD. Thanks. brianh brianh Cool, though a new problem has

Re: [openssl.org #125] [Enhancement] --certdir option for cert/key directory

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Bodo Moeller via RT wrote: Often, the cert/key directory is not used at all; otherwise it should be Well, at least pine and lynx do. And there will be others... easy to use symbolic links to get the desired effect. Thus it should be possible to do without the

Re: shatest.c - SHA_Update()

But here the SHA_Update is called 1000 times with the same buffer. Is it right? It's just a test, so it's like calling SHA_Upodate with a 1000 buffers that are all the same. It's just to ensure that the hash input is large. Normally, you'd call SHA_Update once on your data. /r$

Re: RE : zencod engine for openssl 0.9.6x 0.9.7

Hi there, On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Frederic DONNAT wrote: I've sent the first release of our engine for 0.9.6x more than 6 months ago. Later on, I've sent a release for the 0.9.7dev long before the 0.9.7beta versions. This has been an ongoing problem, for which we apologise. It's the main reason

Re: [openssl.org #75] DJGPP (DOS) Patch for 0.9.7

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: I've been away from this ticket for a while, sorry about the delay. Thanks for getting back to it. I think I've solved the problem. Since the tests are the biggest problem with my suggestion, I deviced a mechanism to generate dummy

Re: HMAC_SHA1

Yes Please read the man page for HMAC(http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/hmac.html) and EVP_sha1 (http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/evp.html) HTH Edson E. W. --- Srinivas Cheruku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is there an implementation for Keyed Hash functions like HMAC_SHA1, HMAC_MD5

[openssl.org #139] [Fwd: Bug#150260: openssl: unnecessarily chatty on stderr]

As far as I know, most programs deliver verbosity to stderr rather than stdout. One could argue that OpenSSL should have optional verbosity, and I would agree. I'm not sure if this belongs in the important range of fixes, however. If a -verbose flag is to be added, I don't know if I want

[openssl.org #144] declaration bug between openssl.c / apps.c

Hey Andrew, Actually, OpenSSL hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode, as far as I know. Honestly, I don't think we should go the non-monolith path eaither, if you consider commands like passwd... If you tell me why you want to go non-monolith, I might change my mind. No

[openssl.org #144] declaration bug between openssl.c / apps.c

[levitte - Thu Jul 18 19:41:51 2002]: Hey Andrew, Actually, OpenSSL hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode, as far as I know. I meant to write hasn't really been possible to build in non-monolith mode *in a long time*... -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #147] [PATCH] The function print_name in apps/apps.c truncates X509_NAM Es that are longer than 255 characters

Fixed by letting X509_NAME_oneline() allocate the string. This ticket is now resolved. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List

[openssl.org #156] Bugs in doc/crypto/{DH,DSA}_set_method.pod

Those two files are copies of the 0.9.6d [engine] variants. However, most functionality has been restored back to the pre-engine days (or rather, the ENGINE framework has become much more transparent). I'm tempted to just revert those two files back to what they are in 0.9.6d, but I'd like

[openssl.org #59] 0.9.7 EVP manual pages incomplete

I just did a tentative addition of history. Please check it and complete it if needed. [levitte - Thu Jul 18 11:19:52 2002]: Has this been dealt with? [jaenicke - Wed May 29 21:45:30 2002]: The manual pages about the EVP wrapper do not reflect the complete history. Example:

[openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

For now, I've added a note in the documentation of RSA_check_key() that explains that it doesn't work properly for hard keys and why. We will ponder a little more on this issue. [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 19 09:52:27 2002]: It wouldn't take much to make this function compatible, or the

[openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

Just attaching a little more state to this ticket ... [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Jun 19 09:52:27 2002]: The problem is that the use oF engines should be totaly transparent to the higher API, but apparently it's not. I don't call RSA_check_key for a hardware key, I call it for my CA private

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIMEspec. Patch included.

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:17:41 +0200, Bodo Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: moeller I think this is wrong. moeller moeller The output file is opened in text mode (not binary), so on systems moeller where line ends are usually

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:07:10 +0100, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: ben The issue as reported to me was that the body had CRLF, but headers LF ben only... ben ben Seems to me they should be consistent. I agree. However, what kinds of complications does that

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:17:41 +0200, Bodo Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: moeller I think this is wrong. moeller moeller The output file is opened in text mode (not binary), so on systems moeller where line ends are

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIMEspec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:07:57 +0200 (METDST), Ben Laurie via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt The issue as reported to me was that the body had CRLF, but headers LF rt only... I just tried to find the places where the body would get a \r anywhere, and failed. Did

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIME spec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:07:57 +0200 (METDST), Ben Laurie via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt The issue as reported to me was that the body had CRLF, but headers LF rt only... I just tried to find the places where the body would get a \r anywhere, and failed. Did

Re: [openssl.org #151] S/MIME implemementation doesn't follow MIMEspec. Patch included.

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:07:10 +0100, Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: ben The issue as reported to me was that the body had CRLF, but headers LF ben only... ben ben Seems to me they should be consistent. I agree. However, what kinds of complications does that

[openssl.org #115] aix 5.1 openssl compiling problem and solution

I just realised that the configuration entries for AIX currently assume a 32-bit environment. The question is how gcc view this, and especially what size an int is, and also the size of a long. If either of them is 64 bits, a different configuration entry may be useful, perhaps called

[openssl.org #59] 0.9.7 EVP manual pages incomplete

G'day, [levitte - Thu Jul 18 20:55:58 2002]: I just did a tentative addition of history. Please check it and complete it if needed. Yup the history stuff looks great, thanks Richard. However I'm not sure who understands the EVP behavioural changes well enough to comment/document them

[openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

OK, I'm going to close this ticket down now as we have at least solved the bug, albeit that it was a bit of a short-cut ... we documented the existing behaviour rather than changing it :-) If anyone feels strongly that this is not resolved until RSA_check_key() is modified to use a new

[openssl.org #104] Make fails with undefined reference

Since this hasn't been reported by anyone else and we haven't heard from the original requestor in a while, I'm stalling this ticket. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project

Re: [openssl.org #115] aix 5.1 openssl compiling problem and solution

Richard Levitte via RT wrote: I just realised that the configuration entries for AIX currently assume a 32-bit environment. The question is how gcc view this, and especially what size an int is, and also the size of a long. If either of them is 64 bits, a different configuration entry may

[openssl.org #156] Bugs in doc/crypto/{DH,DSA,RSA}_set_method.pod and doc/crypto/{dh,dsa,rsa}.pod

I'm taking a look at this now ... please hold off on reverting back to 0.9.6 (non-engine) versions of the docs until I get my head around it again (I haven't looked at this stuff for a while) ... Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe, RT/openssl.org

Newbie Question Re: Public Key Encryption [Please help!!]

Hi, I am trying to encrypt a session key that I created using DES_KEY_SCHEDULE. I am using RSA_public_encrypt to encrypt the session key (8 bytes) with the public key using RSA_PKCS1_OEAP_PADDING. This creates a 64byte encrypted session key. I send this to the Server on the windows machine.

Re: [openssl.org #86] Bug in RSA_check_key

Indeed it would be a good idea, especially for RSA_generate_key, since people have to generate their key thru an interface that is extern to OpenSSL, then sign their CSR with that key using OpenSSL, when everything could be implemented within OpenSSL. The major benefit would come for, a PKI