Re: BUG? CreateToolhelp32Snapshot not on NT4
Hello Noel, You may as well try to find a way to workaround this problem for your platform, instead of just removing the offending code (which may break other things) ... This is taken from the MSDN library description of CreateToolhelp32Snapshot(): Windows NT/2000/XP: Included in Windows 2000 and later. Windows 95/98/Me: Included in Windows 95 and later. Header: Declared in Tlhelp32.h. Library: Use Kernel32.lib. Ok so it is not in WinNT 4... but take a look on this thread from the cygwin mailing list: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-05/msg01731.html This is a direct link to a message which might help you. You can read the whole thread if interested. Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 6:49:31 PM, you wrote: NBK We've made a Windows app with OpenSSL-0.9.6c but it fails to run on NT4. NBK The problem: NBK The procedure entry point CreateToolhelp32Snapshot could not be located NBK in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll NBK Grepping through the source reveals that the only calls to NBK CreateToolhelp32Snapshot are in openssl-0.9.6c/crypto/rand/rand_win.c. NBK Has anyone else faced this problem? I'm going to cut out NBK CreateToolhelp32Snapshot and post a patch. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Cannot compile open openssl-0.9.6d-beta1
Hello Axel, Saturday, May 04, 2002, 12:37:33 AM, you wrote: AHS Hi Lutz! AHS On Fri, 03 May 2002, Lutz Jaenicke wrote: On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:01:52PM +0200, Axel H. Siebenwirth wrote: unfortunately openssl-0.9.6d-beta1 won?t compile on my system. I have this strange feeling that it?s because of my gcc: Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.1/specs Configured with: /usr/local/src/gcc/gcc_3.1.x/configure --enable-languages=c,c++Thread model: single gcc version 3.1 20020429 (prerelease) When linking openssl, the linker stops with an error: gcc -o openssl -DMONOLITH -I../include -fPIC -DTHREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DL_ENDIAN -DTERMIO -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -m486 -Wall -DSHA1_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DRMD160_ASM openssl.o verify.o asn1pars.o req.o dgst.o dh.o dhparam.o enc.o passwd.o gendh.o errstr.o ca.o pkcs7.o crl2p7.o crl.o rsa.o rsautl.o dsa.o dsaparam.o x509.o genrsa.o gendsa.o s_server.o s_client.o speed.o s_time.o apps.o s_cb.o s_socket.o app_rand.o version.o sess_id.o ciphers.o nseq.o pkcs12.o pkcs8.o spkac.o smime.o rand.o -L.. -lssl -L.. -lcrypto -ldl collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault], core dumped make[2]: *** [openssl] Error 1 This definitely is a problem with your build tools. You seem to be using gnu-ld (from binutils!?) and it is failing. AHS GNU ld 2.11.90.0.29 AHS Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. AHS Do you have any advice on what I could try to do? 1. Repost your original message to the binutils bugs mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] . 2. Try to debug ld :) __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
Is there any chance that somone will comment on this topic anytime soon ? PT Does the attached oneliner make sense ? IMO it doesnt break anything, PT but allows reusing the EVP_CIPHER_CTX in calls to EVP_EncryptUpdate, PT after EVP_EncryptFinal is called. PT Any comments greatly appreciated :) PT The diff is against the released 0.9.6c version of the OpenSSL PT library. PT Currently EVP_Encrypt* interface doesnt support PT encryption of multiple data streams with a single PT symmetric key. Is there any chance patches to PT allow this to be accepted in the official OpenSSL PT codebase ? Currently I'm thinking to modify EVP_EncryptFinal PT so it leaves the EVP_CIPHER_STATE in a consistent state PT after finishing its work. PT Any comments on this ? I am aware of the fact that encrypting PT multiple data streams with a single key is not such a good idea PT of a security point of view. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: [PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
Hello Lee, Friday, May 03, 2002, 4:21:04 PM, you wrote: DL I'm not on the dev team or anything, but I don't understand how you could have *ever* successfully encrypted multiple streams with the same EVP context??? Just the IV's alone would have been DL screwed up for CBC ciphers and stream ciphers like RC4 would completely break. ECB won't - IV isn't needed there... I didn't say its a complete solution. Still it doesnt break nothing as far as I can tell. More changes has to come of course... Still what exactly this patch does is: I EVP_UpdateEncrypt is called EVP_EncryptFinal intermidiate data in the temporary buf in the context wont be considered a part of the new data stream. DL Unless, of course, you decrypted in *exactly* the same sequence of streams as you encrypted, in which case, each individual stream would be incorrectly encrypted. DL still, I don't see how this could have ever worked. DL -lee DL -Original Message- DL From: Pavel Tsekov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] DL Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:27 AM DL To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines DL Is there any chance that somone will comment on this topic anytime DL soon ? PT Does the attached oneliner make sense ? IMO it doesnt break anything, PT but allows reusing the EVP_CIPHER_CTX in calls to EVP_EncryptUpdate, PT after EVP_EncryptFinal is called. PT Any comments greatly appreciated :) PT The diff is against the released 0.9.6c version of the OpenSSL PT library. PT Currently EVP_Encrypt* interface doesnt support PT encryption of multiple data streams with a single PT symmetric key. Is there any chance patches to PT allow this to be accepted in the official OpenSSL PT codebase ? Currently I'm thinking to modify EVP_EncryptFinal PT so it leaves the EVP_CIPHER_STATE in a consistent state PT after finishing its work. PT Any comments on this ? I am aware of the fact that encrypting PT multiple data streams with a single key is not such a good idea PT of a security point of view. DL __ DL OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org DL Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL __ DL OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org DL Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] DL Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best regards, Pavelmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[3]: [PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
DL I'm not on the dev team or anything, but I don't understand how you could have *ever* successfully encrypted multiple streams with the same EVP context??? Just the IV's alone would have been DL screwed up for CBC ciphers and stream ciphers like RC4 would completely break. PT ECB won't - IV isn't needed there... I didn't say its a complete solution. Still it doesnt PT break nothing as far as I can tell. More changes has to come of PT course... Still what exactly this patch does is: PT I EVP_UpdateEncrypt is called EVP_EncryptFinal intermidiate data in +- If +- after PT the temporary buf in the context wont be considered a part of the new PT data stream. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
Does the attached oneliner make sense ? IMO it doesnt break anything, but allows reusing the EVP_CIPHER_CTX in calls to EVP_EncryptUpdate, after EVP_EncryptFinal is called. Any comments greatly appreciated :) The diff is against the released 0.9.6c version of the OpenSSL library. PT Currently EVP_Encrypt* interface doesnt support PT encryption of multiple data streams with a single PT symmetric key. Is there any chance patches to PT allow this to be accepted in the official OpenSSL PT codebase ? Currently I'm thinking to modify EVP_EncryptFinal PT so it leaves the EVP_CIPHER_STATE in a consistent state PT after finishing its work. PT Any comments on this ? I am aware of the fact that encrypting PT multiple data streams with a single key is not such a good idea PT of a security point of view. evp_enc.c.diff Description: Binary data
Re: [PATCH] Re: Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
Sorry for the double post - it seems like the ml software sets the reply to addres to the ml address and I've pressed 'Reply All'. I'll be more carefull in the feature :) __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question on EVP encryption/decryption routines
Hello, I have a simple question: Currently EVP_Encrypt* interface doesnt support encryption of multiple data streams with a single symmetric key. Is there any chance patches to allow this to be accepted in the official OpenSSL codebase ? Currently I'm thinking to modify EVP_EncryptFinal so it leaves the EVP_CIPHER_STATE in a consistent state after finishing its work. Any comments on this ? I am aware of the fact that encrypting multiple data streams with a single key is not such a good idea of a security point of view. Thanks! :) __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with installation
Hello Arturo, Wednesday, April 24, 2002, 11:26:56 PM, you wrote: [snip] AMG /usr/ucb/cc: language optional software package not installed AMG *** Error code 1 Since you don't provide any detail about the build system I have to guess. My first guess is that you're trying to compile on some Solaris/SunOS box. My second guess is that you're using the Sun compiler and your problem has nothing to do with OpenSSL, but with the compiler itself. Since I don't know nothing about the Sun compiler I would point you to the compiler manual - I'm sure you'll find the description of the error message there. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: [BUG suggested PATCH] EVP_DecodeUpdate 0.9.6b 0.9.6c
This is a forwarded message From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, April 11, 2002, 12:39:59 PM Subject: [BUG suggested PATCH] EVP_DecodeUpdate 0.9.6b 0.9.6c Any comments on this ? I posted on openssl-users but got no response at all - either confirming on denying... ===8==Original message text=== Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:39:59 +0200 From: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53d) Reply-To: Pavel Tsekov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Syntrex, Inc. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BUG suggested PATCH] EVP_DecodeUpdate 0.9.6b 0.9.6c MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--C1A915C16EC5CF Hello, there! :) My colleague Nedelcho Stanev and myself have identified what we would think to be a bug (or a flaw) in the EVP_DecodeUpdate() routine. We were trying to read base64 encoded data with the base64 BIO which has the 'next' member pointed to membuf BIO in which we write the encoded data. So far so good ... Eventually it turned up that some of the data we pass to the BIO chain is properly decoded while other not - or more properly would be to say - partially decoded. We tried to debug the problem and here is what we have found: The EVP_DecodeUpdate() routine errnously returns 0 (EOF) if the buffer passed it, ends with CRLF and EVP_DecodeBlock() has just processed the data upto the ending CRLF. Attached is a patch and a testcase. I tried to follow the coding style and to make the change not intrusive :) though its a very small change :) Here is how to reproduce: 1. Base64 encode a file lets say 200kb 2. unix2dos the output 3. Use the attached testcase to decode the file ===8===End of original message text=== encode.c.patch Description: Binary data bio.cpp Description: Binary data
Re[2]: Fwd: [BUG suggested PATCH] EVP_DecodeUpdate 0.9.6b 0.9.6c
Hello Lutz, Friday, April 12, 2002, 10:12:04 AM, you wrote: Any comments on this ? I posted on openssl-users but got no response at all - either confirming on denying... LJ Your posting is still in my incoming queue. LJ Obviously my team mates normally dealing with EVP issues are currently LJ too busy to take care of it. But it won't be forgotten :-) Ok - forgive me if I was too pushy :) __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
