X509_LOOKUP_init method

Hello! I write my own X509_LOOKUP_database method for X509_STORE I found, that method X509_LOOKUP_new() is called from X509_STORE_add_lookup(), methods X509_LOOKUP_shutdown() and X509_LOOKUP_free() are called from X509_STORE_free() and so on, but I don't found where is X509_LOOKUP_init() called.

Public Key Implementation

I'm lookin for a free public key cryptosystem (implementation in a commercial application). Think the openSSL RSA functions only free outside the US ? I checked DH routines. Is it possible to use DH for encryption in any way? I think encryption based on discrete logarithm problem like DH does

Re: solving those data type problems

On 4/21/1999 1:49 AM, Goetz Babin-Ebell enlightened me with the following: >Perhaps we should clear sizes of data types. > >Perhaps something like: > >typedef char int8; >typedef unsigned char uint8; >typedef short int16; >typedef unsigned short uint16; >typede

Re: LP64: blowfish woes

> > Bottom line. "#define BF_LONG unsigned int" still makes perfect sense on > > all (well, at least on mentioned:-) platforms. > > Your patch is in the CVS. Please review the current CVS version or > snapshot. As someone pointed out there're machines with sizeof(int)==8 out there. So I'd like to

Re: LP64: sha woes

Hi! I've got a response on the subject from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. As it's obviously not possible to reply to the adress, I'll reply to the list... > > ! #define INIT_DATA_h0 0x67452301UL > > Is the "UL" portable (ie required by the ANSI spec)? Yes, UL is ANSI compliant modifier. > Personally I w

Re: LP64: blowfish woes

Ulf Möller wrote: > > > Bottom line. "#define BF_LONG unsigned int" still makes perfect sense on > > all (well, at least on mentioned:-) platforms. > > Your patch is in the CVS. Please review the current CVS version or > snapshot. > > > On the other hand! Does the library actually *compile* und

Re: LP64: blowfish woes

> Bottom line. "#define BF_LONG unsigned int" still makes perfect sense on > all (well, at least on mentioned:-) platforms. Your patch is in the CVS. Please review the current CVS version or snapshot. > On the other hand! Does the library actually *compile* under > MS-DOS/WIN16? Does *anybody* a

Re: NOPROTO

> It seems to do a very good job. It does get a bit confused by function > pointer typedefs and it doesn't like some multi line #define's in evp.h > but it should be fine if its restricted to the prototype part of the > header. I completely missed the the function pointer typedefs, but that is ea

Re: LP64: blowfish woes

> > > #if !defined(BF_PTR) && !defined(BF_PTR2) > > > #define BF_PTR > > > #endif > > i.e. the comment is effectively *disregarded*, isn't it? > > This is autogenerated in Configure. Oops! I suppose I owe an apology for my comment following the quoted string then. I apologize and I'm sorry! BUT!

BIO * sock, should i use the BIO_set_accept_bios?

In the .\demos\bio\ dir there is an example of using BIO_new_ssl and some other functions. Should i use this way to make a server program using openssl, or is it prefered to use an other way. I currently try to make a server, which uses openssl, and which has to spawn a new thread after an accep

Re: LP64: blowfish woes

At 17:45 20.04.99 +0200, you wrote: >> I myself would vote for the first alternative unless someone can either: >> >> - confirm that *(unligned long *)((unsigned char *)p+i&~7) generates the >> unwanted unaligned load instruction on Alpha; >> - confirm that the library compiles and works under MS