[levitte - Sat Nov 29 10:36:25 2003]: > [steve - Sun Nov 16 15:30:47 2003]: > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003, David wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> These bugs all appear to be mostly cosmetic, but they leave me > > wondering > > >> what the latest valid expiration date is and whether the > generated > > >> certificate is actually valid. > > >> > > > > > > The problems are largely based around the behaviour of the system > time > > libraries and things like time_t when it overflows or becomes > > negative. > > What actually happens seems to be "undefined". > > > > To get more consistent behaviour OpenSSL should really do its own > date > > calculations without the limitations and unpredictability of system > > library routines. > > I entirely agree with that. That could also be used to avoid the > duplication of timing code that we have a little here and there. I'll > add it to my TODO, but I'll make no promises about when I'll even > start. > ..
I actually looked into this before and got quite far with it. I'd located a number of useful time algorithms and got some initial code. Unless you feel some compulsion to look into this I'd rather handle it myself. Steve. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
