Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Jan Just Keijser]

Hi,

Apologies for top-posting, but I am glad to report that Optimcloud and I 
managed to resolve this issue. It turns out that some of my emails were 
not received and that the other party was not aware that I had *not* 
been paid.
Optimcloud promptly proceeded to pay the agreed sum, which I have now 
received.


I am also glad to report that - after more emails back and forth - he is 
now able to continue with the development of his application.


JJK / Jan Just Keijser


On 03/05/21 09:20, Jan Just Keijser wrote:

Just for the record:

On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.



[...]

I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel' listed 
this as "paid" work and even though he made repeated promises about 
following up on payment, I never did receive payment.

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Embedded Devel]

I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel' listed 
this as "paid" work and even though he made repeated promises about 
following up on payment, I never did receive payment.


I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job and 
found nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either someone 
hijacked an email address - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very 
*safe* company to do business with -  or that 'Embedded Devel' at 
Optimcloud simply thinks he can get away with this - meaning that 
Optimcloud is not a very *trustworthy* company to do business with.


no actually, neither is the case. I submitted the work for payment, 
accounting inquired of the developer if it was all working and he 
stated it wasnt. So where it is, and its more i think we dont 
understand is when the client registers and is authorized it should 
generate a new xml config for the client, and right now there appears 
to be some mismatch, basically we have no idea how you had this 
working. so we are a month in from the work you did and i submitted 
payment for, and still have had 0 reproducability. Ive even reviewed 
the document you sent, as has he, and we are missing something.


This is the first time I hear of this. To get a few things straight 
(and I have the full email exchange at hand to back this up):


Wow so lets just make the whole thing public.

- 'embedded devel' originally asked for a developer to port old 
OpenSSL code to openssl 1.1+
- I offered to do this and ported the application to work with openssl 
1.1.1 within a few hours. 'embedded devel' agreed with me in email 
that I had achieved the original goal.


This is in fact true, and i dont dispute it.



- after that, I offered to help in debugging the rest of the 
client/server application workflow, which was poorly documented but 
which had little to do with openssl specifics. I never offered or 
promised to get the entire client/server application framework working 
again.
- 'embedded devel' accepted my offer and said he had a fixed maximum 
amount that he could spend.


Also true.

- I worked for the remainder of the time on analyzing and debugging 
the application workflow, even though it turned out that I was not 
given all source code. 'embedded devel' confirmed that a part was missing.
The missing part was the UI, which itself was also in the process of a 
rewrite, also of which isnt completed and the developer has been 
compensated already.


- I wrote a report with my findings and suggestions on how to proceed. 
'embedded devel' was satisfied with the report and told me he would 
ask accounting to pay me.


I am and was satisfied, and I did submit it to billing. However that 
being said, we still cannot reproduce how you made this work because it 
is unclear, it doesnt apper clearly in the document, that also didnt 
prevent me from paying the bill.


- after several reminders about payment he did not respond to my 
emails until I made my post yesterday, claiming for the first time 
that what I had done was not reproducible.


This is untrue, and heres the proof.

"ive already processed this for payment, ill push the accountant to get 
it remitted


though the tone is a bit stern...  nothing to worry about, itll post to 
you.


Thanks

On 3/31/21 10:11 PM, Jan Just Keijser wrote:


Hello there,

On 30/03/21 14:47, Jan Just Keijser wrote:


just as a check/reminder: I have not yet seen my payment.
Please let me know when the payment is made.



this is my second and last reminder: I expect payment for my services, 
€ 1000 as agreed and promised, before the end of this week.


kind regards,

Jan Just Keijser


"

Now so we can not consume everyone elses time with trivial bits of 
banter and this spins out of hand


emailing the list, and outing these facts doesnt get you paid either. It 
seems yopur just upset because you believe we are trying to rip you off 
and we arent. Plainly said it doesnt appear to work, we cannot reproduce 
it, however i know that when you did it, it did work, so whats the 
secret. To me its simple.


work is obviously done, more then happy to pay, matter of fact ill remit 
$500 Euros in good faith right now. Out of my personal account. Now 
proof of payment is sent, simply tell us how you made this work. And 
leave everyone else out of it, We are all busy, I did what i said i 
would do, and never intended not to pay you.



Jan Just Keijser

-€500.00

Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 2:54 PM

Id attache the receipt, but its been blocked by the mailing list due to size




Reviewing this, I see no reason to change my viewpoint on the 
trustworthiness of either 'embedded devel' or the company Optimcloud.


Personally, I would have used a different tone in your last 3 emails. 
Its not very professional. And I did submit the payment information, I 
even signed for it to be remitted. My Accountants have a process, they 
followed the process. Sometimes thing take time of get thrown a curve 
ball. And FYI, I am 

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Jan Just Keijser]

First of all, apologies to this mailing list for making you part of this.
I will reply one more time , then take this discussion off-list.

On 04/05/21 07:24, Embedded Devel wrote:


On 5/3/21 2:20 PM, Jan Just Keijser wrote:

Just for the record:

On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.



[...]

I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel' listed 
this as "paid" work and even though he made repeated promises about 
following up on payment, I never did receive payment.


I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job and 
found nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either someone 
hijacked an email address - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very 
*safe* company to do business with -  or that 'Embedded Devel' at 
Optimcloud simply thinks he can get away with this - meaning that 
Optimcloud is not a very *trustworthy* company to do business with.


no actually, neither is the case. I submitted the work for payment, 
accounting inquired of the developer if it was all working and he 
stated it wasnt. So where it is, and its more i think we dont 
understand is when the client registers and is authorized it should 
generate a new xml config for the client, and right now there appears 
to be some mismatch, basically we have no idea how you had this 
working. so we are a month in from the work you did and i submitted 
payment for, and still have had 0 reproducability. Ive even reviewed 
the document you sent, as has he, and we are missing something.


This is the first time I hear of this. To get a few things straight (and 
I have the full email exchange at hand to back this up):
- 'embedded devel' originally asked for a developer to port old OpenSSL 
code to openssl 1.1+
- I offered to do this and ported the application to work with openssl 
1.1.1 within a few hours. 'embedded devel' agreed with me in email that 
I had achieved the original goal.
- after that, I offered to help in debugging the rest of the 
client/server application workflow, which was poorly documented but 
which had little to do with openssl specifics. I never offered or 
promised to get the entire client/server application framework working 
again.
- 'embedded devel' accepted my offer and said he had a fixed maximum 
amount that he could spend.
- I worked for the remainder of the time on analyzing and debugging the 
application workflow, even though it turned out that I was not given all 
source code. 'embedded devel' confirmed that a part was missing.
- I wrote a report with my findings and suggestions on how to proceed. 
'embedded devel' was satisfied with the report and told me he would ask 
accounting to pay me.
- after several reminders about payment he did not respond to my emails 
until I made my post yesterday, claiming for the first time that what I 
had done was not reproducible.


Reviewing this, I see no reason to change my viewpoint on the 
trustworthiness of either 'embedded devel' or the company Optimcloud.


[...]
Snipping out the rest of the mail as it is off-topic to this mailing 
list. I will reply to it privately.


JJK

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Embedded Devel]

On 5/3/21 2:20 PM, Jan Just Keijser wrote:

Just for the record:

On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.



[...]

I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel' listed 
this as "paid" work and even though he made repeated promises about 
following up on payment, I never did receive payment.


I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job and 
found nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either someone 
hijacked an email address - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very 
*safe* company to do business with -  or that 'Embedded Devel' at 
Optimcloud simply thinks he can get away with this - meaning that 
Optimcloud is not a very *trustworthy* company to do business with.


no actually, neither is the case. I submitted the work for payment, 
accounting inquired of the developer if it was all working and he stated 
it wasnt. So where it is, and its more i think we dont understand is 
when the client registers and is authorized it should generate a new xml 
config for the client, and right now there appears to be some mismatch, 
basically we have no idea how you had this working. so we are a month in 
from the work you did and i submitted payment for, and still have had 0 
reproducability. Ive even reviewed the document you sent, as has he, and 
we are missing something.


the database says

(6,'archer.optimcloud.com','0.0.0.0','60:32:b1:f8:9b:3a','mips','12345678','19.07.2','1.0.3','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_ca_cert.pem','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_client_cert.pem','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_client_key.pem','none','2021-04-29 
07:28:53',1,1)


the ac_server logs says. so is it a mismatched certificate ?

5]: DEBUG: generic blocked db query: SELECT * FROM blocked_systems WHERE 
mac="60:32:b1:f8:9b:3a";
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG: generic new systems 
db query: SELECT * FROM new_systems WHERE mac="60:32:b1:f8:9b:3a";
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG: generic systems db 
query: SELECT * FROM systems WHERE mac="60:32:b1:f8:9b:3a";
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: INFO:  Device Registration 
Process
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG: db query: SELECT id 
FROM systems WHERE hostname="client.xi-group.com" and active='1' ORDER 
BY ID DESC LIMIT 1;
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: 
ac_gen_db_generate_conf_xml(): No such hostname: client.xi-group.com
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG:  Sending ACK reply 
(INIT+XML config)
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG: generic update last 
seen db query: UPDATE systems SET last_seen=NOW() WHERE 
hostname="client.xi-group.com";
May  4 07:07:22 portaladmin ac_server[24675]: DEBUG: generic update log 
db query: INSERT INTO logs(time, actor, action) VALUES (NOW(), 
'ac_server', 'AC_INIT from client: client.xi-group.com; XML Reply.');
the db says your hostname is archer 
(6,'archer.optimcloud.com','0.0.0.0','60:32:b1:f8:9b:3a','mips','12345678','19.07.2','1.0.3','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_ca_cert.pem','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_client_cert.pem','/etc/apconfig/CA/ac_client_key.pem','none','2021-04-29 
07:28:53',1,1)





You have been warned.

JJK


On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i believe this was all from back in the 0.9x days, the code in 
question is close to 10+/- years old


if everyone would look at the email thread  re: "ssl client write / 
server accept seems broken"


some might see more of the issue i am facing, i have has 1 person 
look at this and he believes


quote "

This looks like using *very* outdated OpenSSL API. Hence the SSL
client (and server) code needs to ported to work with more recent
versions OpenSSL and make use of TLS methods instead of SSL methods.

For testing you could try to build OpenSSL with the old SSL3 support
enabled (we don't even support that at all in OpenWrt any longer, but
should work to build manually).
Because ssl_undefined_function is most likely a result of:
Disabled features:
...
    ssl3                    [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3
    ssl3-method             [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3_METHOD
...

If you find someone very familiar with OpenSSLs API (I've used it, more
than once, but it's not what I'm doing every day), this can be done in
a few days. I'd probably need a week for this and I'm not particularly
keen on it, there are things I'm better with which are waiting as well."

i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Jan Just Keijser]

Just for the record:

On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.



[...]

I was that second developer and even though 'Embedded Devel' listed this 
as "paid" work and even though he made repeated promises about following 
up on payment, I never did receive payment.


I checked the email address and IP addresses used for this job and found 
nothing terribly wrong. My conclusion is that either someone hijacked an 
email address - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very *safe* company to 
do business with -  or that 'Embedded Devel' at Optimcloud simply thinks 
he can get away with this - meaning that Optimcloud is not a very 
*trustworthy* company to do business with.


You have been warned.

JJK


On 26/03/21 09:51, Embedded Devel wrote:
i believe this was all from back in the 0.9x days, the code in 
question is close to 10+/- years old


if everyone would look at the email thread  re: "ssl client write / 
server accept seems broken"


some might see more of the issue i am facing, i have has 1 person look 
at this and he believes


quote "

This looks like using *very* outdated OpenSSL API. Hence the SSL
client (and server) code needs to ported to work with more recent
versions OpenSSL and make use of TLS methods instead of SSL methods.

For testing you could try to build OpenSSL with the old SSL3 support
enabled (we don't even support that at all in OpenWrt any longer, but
should work to build manually).
Because ssl_undefined_function is most likely a result of:
Disabled features:
...
    ssl3                    [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3
    ssl3-method             [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3_METHOD
...

If you find someone very familiar with OpenSSLs API (I've used it, more
than once, but it's not what I'm doing every day), this can be done in
a few days. I'd probably need a week for this and I'm not particularly
keen on it, there are things I'm better with which are waiting as well."

i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid - SSL now FIXED

[Jan Just Keijser]

On 28/03/21 15:20, Yassine Chaouche wrote:


Le 3/26/21 à 12:35 PM, Embedded Devel a écrit :

This has now been fixed SSL is working


In a few hours ?

Yup, took me about 4 hours to understand the problem and get a working 
fix - there wasn't much wrong with the code itself, but I suspect a 
weird interaction/build issue with the OpenWRT build of OpenSSL 1.1.1j.


JJK

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid - SSL now FIXED

[Yassine Chaouche]

Le 3/26/21 à 12:35 PM, Embedded Devel a écrit :

This has now been fixed SSL is working


In a few hours ?

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid - SSL now FIXED

[Embedded Devel]

This has now been fixed SSL is working

On 3/26/21 3:51 PM, Embedded Devel wrote:


On 3/26/21 2:46 PM, David von Oheimb wrote:


Embedded Devel,

my sympathy - I know this can be painful and frustrating.

From which old OpenSSL version to which target version do you need to 
get the code updated?
And as info to whoever may be considering picking up this task: which 
is your timeline for that?


Within OpenSSL we are currently discussing how to handle version 
compatibility issues
with the upcoming version 3.0 at 
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/14628 
.


Can you give some concrete typical examples which exact issues you 
are facing?


    David

i believe this was all from back in the 0.9x days, the code in 
question is close to 10+/- years old


if everyone would look at the email thread  re: "ssl client write / 
server accept seems broken"


some might see more of the issue i am facing, i have has 1 person look 
at this and he believes


quote "

This looks like using *very* outdated OpenSSL API. Hence the SSL
client (and server) code needs to ported to work with more recent
versions OpenSSL and make use of TLS methods instead of SSL methods.

For testing you could try to build OpenSSL with the old SSL3 support
enabled (we don't even support that at all in OpenWrt any longer, but
should work to build manually).
Because ssl_undefined_function is most likely a result of:
Disabled features:
...
    ssl3                    [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3
    ssl3-method             [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3_METHOD
...

If you find someone very familiar with OpenSSLs API (I've used it, more
than once, but it's not what I'm doing every day), this can be done in
a few days. I'd probably need a week for this and I'm not particularly
keen on it, there are things I'm better with which are waiting as well."

i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort 
it all out.




On 25.03.21 13:58, Floodeenjr, Thomas wrote:
If your problem is the migration from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1, I have 
attached my porting notes, if that helps.


-Tom

-Original Message-
From: openssl-users On Behalf Of 
Embedded Devel

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 8:02 PM
To:openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: openssl development work / paid

I tried to get through this on my own, not being a openssl 
developer, made progress but still no joy


so we had an app that was written some 8-10 years ago, which worked 
fine for client/server tls


update to today, no longer functional, deprecations in openssl cause 
errors


it is not a large app, and i believe if someone were to resolve the 
openssl issues it would work again


whos up for making some money ?


Thanks

Re: Version compatibility issues - Re: openssl development work / paid

[Embedded Devel]

On 3/26/21 2:46 PM, David von Oheimb wrote:


Embedded Devel,

my sympathy - I know this can be painful and frustrating.

From which old OpenSSL version to which target version do you need to 
get the code updated?
And as info to whoever may be considering picking up this task: which 
is your timeline for that?


Within OpenSSL we are currently discussing how to handle version 
compatibility issues
with the upcoming version 3.0 at 
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/14628 
.


Can you give some concrete typical examples which exact issues you are 
facing?


    David

i believe this was all from back in the 0.9x days, the code in question 
is close to 10+/- years old


if everyone would look at the email thread  re: "ssl client write / 
server accept seems broken"


some might see more of the issue i am facing, i have has 1 person look 
at this and he believes


quote "

This looks like using *very* outdated OpenSSL API. Hence the SSL
client (and server) code needs to ported to work with more recent
versions OpenSSL and make use of TLS methods instead of SSL methods.

For testing you could try to build OpenSSL with the old SSL3 support
enabled (we don't even support that at all in OpenWrt any longer, but
should work to build manually).
Because ssl_undefined_function is most likely a result of:
Disabled features:
...
    ssl3                    [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3
    ssl3-method             [default] OPENSSL_NO_SSL3_METHOD
...

If you find someone very familiar with OpenSSLs API (I've used it, more
than once, but it's not what I'm doing every day), this can be done in
a few days. I'd probably need a week for this and I'm not particularly
keen on it, there are things I'm better with which are waiting as well."

i now have a second developer looking at this, so hoping he can sort it 
all out.




On 25.03.21 13:58, Floodeenjr, Thomas wrote:

If your problem is the migration from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1, I have attached my 
porting notes, if that helps.

-Tom

-Original Message-
From: openssl-users  On Behalf Of Embedded 
Devel
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 8:02 PM
To:openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: openssl development work / paid

I tried to get through this on my own, not being a openssl developer, made 
progress but still no joy

so we had an app that was written some 8-10 years ago, which worked fine for 
client/server tls

update to today, no longer functional, deprecations in openssl cause errors

it is not a large app, and i believe if someone were to resolve the openssl 
issues it would work again

whos up for making some money ?


Thanks