Hi all,
is there a list of currently supported platforms?
Which platforms are deprecaded an could/should be removed in the
sourcecode?
MS-DOS?
Windows 16 Bit?
OS/2?
Windows 95/98/ME?
Windows NT/2000/XP?
Cheers
Jan
__
OpenSSL
On 01/06/14 08:28, Janpopan wrote:
Hi all,
is there a list of currently supported platforms?
Which platforms are deprecaded an could/should be removed in the
sourcecode?
MS-DOS?
Windows 16 Bit?
OS/2?
Windows 95/98/ME?
Windows NT/2000/XP?
Hi Jan
You raise an interesting and
For a time period of days I've been attempting to chase down why
MBSTRING_UTF8 got utf-8 encoded strings turned into T.61 when
generating a CSR with a library, but were utf8strings when using the
openssl command line tool.
Finally found it.
crypto/asn1/a_strnid.c has the default global_mask set
Patch applied, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
Patch applied, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
Hello,
I think it is not to be closed, the leak occurs.
Have you tried this with a recent version of OpenSSL? I can no longer produce
a memory leak mentioned in PR#2745.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
FIxed now, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
Hello Shephen,
Thank you. I can't reproduce it either, the ticket may be closed.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dr. Stephen Henson st...@openssl.org
wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
Hello,
I think it is not to be closed, the leak occurs.
Have you tried this
Fixed in latest OpenSSL, ticket closed.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've updated OpenSSL so the padding extension is no longer used by default and
the option SSL_OP_TLSEXT_PADDING enables it (it is part of the SSL_OP_ALL).
This resolves this issue as applications can now decide whether to
The core team should come up with a list and announce the decision. SOON. Be
firm. Say something like in xxx months, support for these platforms will be
dropped and we will start to remove that code. Encourage folks interested in
supporting those platforms to maintain a fork. I don't care
Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension by
default. Only applications compiled against 1.0.1g or later that use
SSL_OP_ALL, or specifically enable this work-around, will send the extension.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've updated OpenSSL so the padding extension is no longer used by default
and
the option SSL_OP_TLSEXT_PADDING enables it (it is part of the SSL_OP_ALL).
This resolves
Fixed now, resolving ticket.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
Fixed now, ticket resolved.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:47:30PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension
by default. Only applications compiled against 1.0.1g or later
that use
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
openssl itself use macros if you want.
This has been on my list of things I want to see happen for a long time
too. Together we removing some APIs. I also
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:47:30PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension
by default. Only applications
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
openssl itself use macros if you want.
This has been on my list of things I want to see happen for a long time
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:32:55PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
Repurposing bits in this way is problematic if that bit meant something else
in any OpenSSL-1.x.y release (notional ABI). If the bit is from 0.9.x, and
was never used in 1.x.y, then it is OK.
I think it is actually a
On 01/06/14 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
openssl itself use macros if you want.
This has been on my list
On 1 June 2014 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson st...@openssl.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions.
Within openssl itself use macros if you want.
This has been on my list of things I want to
The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
safe modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might not
be co-prime to 2310.
The patch below my signature addresses this problem.
--
Viktor.
diff --git a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c b/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
index
Steve Henson has comitted this here:
https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=4fdf917
Thanks
Matt
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:14:00PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
safe modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might not
be co-prime to 2310.
The patch below my signature addresses this problem.
Oops, previous patch
You didn't update the test...
On 1 June 2014 21:26, Viktor Dukhovni openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:14:00PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
safe modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might
Hi David
Patch applied:
https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=d1e1aee
Many thanks for your contribution.
Matt
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Richard Moore wrote:
On 1 June 2014 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson st...@openssl.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions.
Within openssl itself use macros if you want.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:45:15PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
You didn't update the test...
You're right. The below should take care of that.
--
Viktor.
diff --git a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c b/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
index 2d66b61..df50305 100644
--- a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
+++
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:29PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
@@ -1,21 +1,37 @@
-primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11]
-safe = False # Not sure if the period's right on safe primes.
+# Odd primes 13
+#
+primes = [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19]
Maybe the comment is wrong?
Kurt
On Fri May 09 09:59:51 2014, s...@pdflib.com wrote:
Am 09.05.14 00:53, schrieb Stephen Henson via RT:
On Thu May 08 15:49:11 2014, s...@pdflib.com wrote:
I can confirm that with this patch applied my use case with
X509_verify_cert() works as expected (misidentification of signing
On Thu May 29 08:28:24 2014, noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt -
I have not forgot about this I can't find the machine I wrote the
code on (my place probably looks a lot like your place - different
computers and laptops with different OSes all over the place).
My place does look a bit like
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:12:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:29PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
@@ -1,21 +1,37 @@
-primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11]
-safe = False # Not sure if the period's right on safe primes.
+# Odd primes 13
+#
+primes = [3, 5, 7, 11, 13,
Only just joined the list and I see that there's been some follow up
stuff to my contribution, but I submitted a follow up pull request to
some of this stuff on GitHub
(https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/118). So probably some
duplication there :).
--
Felix - http://www.erbridge.co.uk/
On
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
Well that's one of the issues we need to resolve. Apache now compiles with
OPENSSL_NO_SSL_INTERN but it needed some additional accessor functions before
it could.
FWIW, Postfix TLS support predates OpenSSL 0.9.7, but the only
Thanks a lot for fixing this!
//D.S.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Henson via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
FIxed now, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
36 matches
Mail list logo
