On 03/08/18 12:06, Andy Polyakov wrote:
>
>> Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough.
>>
>> I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks
>> on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways).
>>
>> And allow the following additional use case for any
Hi,
Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough.
I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks
on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways).
And allow the following additional use case for any cipher
unsigned char *in = buf + sizeof(buf) - X, *out
In message <39cb0562-d313-c2d7-8d84-58badaaaf...@openssl.org> on Wed, 28 Feb
2018 18:09:38 +0100, Andy Polyakov said:
appro> >>> I'd like to request more opinions on
appro> >>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is
appro> >>> whether or not
On 28/02/18 17:09, Andy Polyakov wrote:
I'd like to request more opinions on
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is
whether or not following fragment should work
unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf;
for (i = 0; i <
>>> I'd like to request more opinions on
>>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is
>>> whether or not following fragment should work
>>>
>>> unsigned char *inp = buf, *out = buf;
>>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < sizeof(buf); i++) {
>>> EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, out, ,
On 28/02/18 16:32, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 28, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to request more opinions on
>>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5427. Key dispute question is
>>> whether or not following fragment