Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows

[Brian Hatch]

> The inclusion of "e_os.h" in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as 
> either
> 
>   #include "openssl/e_os.h"
> 
> or
> 
>   #include "../e_os.h"
> 
> This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6.

I just made a symlink to the existing e_os.h in the build directory.

Agreed, there doth be an error somewhere herin that needs fixing.

(This was with MingW as a cross compiler running on Debian Linux.)


--
Brian Hatch  Three kinds of Falsehoods
   Systems and Lies
   Security Engineer   Damned Lies
http://www.ifokr.org/bri/  User Manuals

Every message PGP signed


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Packet overhead estimation

[Marcel Vinzens]

Hello,

In order to estimate the (maximal) packet overhead which is added by OpenSSL, we do the following things:

1) We add up the header length: SSL3_RT_HEADER_LENGTH (5 bytes)
2) We add up the hash size: EVP_MD_size(..) (e.g. 16 bytes with MD5, 20 bytes with SHA) 
3) We add up the block size of the cipher: EVP_CIPHER_CTX_block_size(...) (actually, only required in case of block ciphers because of padding)

We are sure that there is no compression.

Is this correct or should we take another approach?

By the way, is the ciphers block_size set to 0, in case it is not a block cipher? Or can we distinguish block ciphers and stream ciphers for the calculation in a generic way?

Regards

- Marcel Vinzens

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows

[Jeffrey Altman]

Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), "Jeffrey Altman via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> 
rt> The inclusion of "e_os.h" in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as 
rt> either
rt> 
rt>   #include "openssl/e_os.h"

Absolutely not!

 

Well, the reason I say that is because of the following grep output 
which clearly shows that "openssl/e_os.h" is used more often than not.

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\demoCA

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\demoCA\private

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\apps\set

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\bugs

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\certs

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\certs\expired

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\asn1

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bf
bftest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bf\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bio
bss_bio.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn
bntest.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
exptest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\alpha

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\alpha.works

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\bn\asm\x86

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\buffer

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\cast
casttest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\cast\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\comp

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\conf
conf_api.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des
cfb_enc.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\t

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\des\times

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dh
dhtest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dsa
dsatest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\dso

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\err

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\evp

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\hmac
hmactest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\idea
ideatest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\lhash

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md2
md2test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md4
md4test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md5
md5test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\md5\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\mdc2
mdc2test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\objects

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pem

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\perlasm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs12

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7\p7

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\pkcs7\t

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rand
md_rand.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
randfile.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
randfile.c:/* #define RFILE ".rnd" - defined in ../../e_os.h */
randtest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc2
rc2test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc4
rc4test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc4\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc5
rc5test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rc5\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\ripemd
rmdtest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\ripemd\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\rsa
rsa_test.c:#include "openssl/e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\sha
sha1test.c:#include "../e_os.h"
shatest.c:#include "../e_os.h"
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\sha\asm

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\stack

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\threads
mttest.c:#include "../../e_os.h"
th-lock.c:#include 
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\txt_db

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\x509

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\crypto\x509v3

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\bio

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\eay

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\maurice

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\pkcs12

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\prime

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\sign

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\ssl

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\demos\state_machine

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\apps
GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\crypto

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\doc\ssl

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\inc32

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\inc32\openssl

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\include

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\include\openssl

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\MacOS

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\MacOS\GetHTTPS.src

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\ms

GLOBAL: C:\src\openssl\0.9.6l\out32dll

GLOBAL: C:

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 10:59:47 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer
rt> version file can be overwrited by the elder verion
rt> ones. Is it true for program running on unix

The Unixly installation does it in such a way that the installed
files become new files instead of overwriting old ones.  The old ones
are removed in the process, but may still hang in there until no
process uses them (this depends on the Unix you use).

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 10:59:47 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer
rt> version file can be overwrited by the elder verion
rt> ones. Is it true for program running on unix

The Unixly installation does it in such a way that the installed
files become new files instead of overwriting old ones.  The old ones
are removed in the process, but may still hang in there until no
process uses them (this depends on the Unix you use).

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[ho k via RT]

Dear Richard

I have concern that just as MS-windows, the newer
version file can be overwrited by the elder verion
ones. Is it true for program running on unix

 --- Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 
> 5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> rt> It is because of compability problem with
> existing
> rt> program. May I delete libcrypto.so and
> libssl.so, then
> rt> restore the lower verion for  downgrade clearly.
> 
> If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so
> to come from
> OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by
> all means,
> downgrade.
> 
> -
> Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
> See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for
> details.
> 
> -- 
> Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26
> 52 47
> \  SWEDEN   \ or
> +46-708-26 53 44
> Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis--
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Member of the OpenSSL development team:
> http://www.openssl.org/
> 
> Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an
> archival fee of $400.
> See  for
> more info.
>  

___
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> It is because of compability problem with existing
rt> program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then
rt> restore the lower verion for  downgrade clearly.

If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so to come from
OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by all means,
downgrade.

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 10:34:49 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> It is because of compability problem with existing
rt> program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then
rt> restore the lower verion for  downgrade clearly.

If your programs require libcrypto.so and libssl.so to come from
OpenSSL 0.9.6x (x being any patch level), then by all means,
downgrade.

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[ho k via RT]

Dear Richard

It is because of compability problem with existing
program. May I delete libcrypto.so and libssl.so, then
restore the lower verion for  downgrade clearly.
Thanks
  

 --- Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 
> 5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> rt> 
> rt> Dear
> rt> 
> rt> I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade
> to
> rt> lower version of openssl if my system has
> already been
> rt> install openssl-0.9.7c 
> 
> There's no problem with downgrading in itself. 
> However, you will need
> to take care of every application that links to
> libcrypto.so and
> libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all
> enabled with
> OpenSSL.
> 
> Can I ask why the downgrade?
> 
> -
> Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
> See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for
> details.
> 
> -- 
> Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26
> 52 47
> \  SWEDEN   \ or
> +46-708-26 53 44
> Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis--
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Member of the OpenSSL development team:
> http://www.openssl.org/
> 
> Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an
> archival fee of $400.
> See  for
> more info.
>  

___
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> 
rt> Dear
rt> 
rt> I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to
rt> lower version of openssl if my system has already been
rt> install openssl-0.9.7c 

There's no problem with downgrading in itself.  However, you will need
to take care of every application that links to libcrypto.so and
libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all enabled with
OpenSSL.

Can I ask why the downgrade?

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 09:46:42 +0100 (MET), "ho k via RT" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> 
rt> Dear
rt> 
rt> I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to
rt> lower version of openssl if my system has already been
rt> install openssl-0.9.7c 

There's no problem with downgrading in itself.  However, you will need
to take care of every application that links to libcrypto.so and
libssl.so, if you have shared library support at all enabled with
OpenSSL.

Can I ask why the downgrade?

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #754] Downgrade to Lower Version

[ho k via RT]

Dear

I would like to ask may it possible to downgrade to
lower version of openssl if my system has already been
install openssl-0.9.7c 

___
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), "Jeffrey 
Altman via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> 
rt> The inclusion of "e_os.h" in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as 
rt> either
rt> 
rt>   #include "openssl/e_os.h"

Absolutely not!

rt> or
rt> 
rt>   #include "../e_os.h"

I'd rather say either:

#ifdef FLAT_INC
# include "e_os.h"
#else
# include "../../e_os.h"
#endif

or:

#include "e_os.h"

I prefer the latter.

rt> This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6.

Uhmm, why does cbc_enc.c need e_os.h?

But you're right, the consistency is a bit lacking there...

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.

__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows

[Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed,  5 Nov 2003 08:42:39 +0100 (MET), "Jeffrey 
Altman via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

rt> 
rt> The inclusion of "e_os.h" in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as 
rt> either
rt> 
rt>   #include "openssl/e_os.h"

Absolutely not!

rt> or
rt> 
rt>   #include "../e_os.h"

I'd rather say either:

#ifdef FLAT_INC
# include "e_os.h"
#else
# include "../../e_os.h"
#endif

or:

#include "e_os.h"

I prefer the latter.

rt> This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6.

Uhmm, why does cbc_enc.c need e_os.h?

But you're right, the consistency is a bit lacking there...

-
Please consider sponsoring my work on free software.
See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details.

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Tunnlandsvägen 3  \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  \ S-168 36  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\  SWEDEN   \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See  for more info.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[openssl.org #753] 0.9.6l does not compile on Windows

[Jeffrey Altman via RT]

The inclusion of "e_os.h" in crypto\des\cfb_enc.c must be specified as 
either

  #include "openssl/e_os.h"

or

  #include "../e_os.h"

This is not performed in a consistent manner in OpenSSL 0.9.6.


__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]