Hello,Pierre Delaage
Have you seen My Attached images .Screenshot Of Emulator.
i dont Know Which is Problem?
how casn i Solve this?Is There any problem in .LIb and in .DLL?
How Can i Test This Two Libs and Dll?
Hi All,
I would like to add 3 points
1/ please add to the list Windows CE >= 5.0 / Windows Mobile >= 6
2/ MAY add a compatibility statement as this, for ANY platform :
- compile with THOSE "development environmentS",
- run on THOSE "runtime platforms" (hardware/ Os / emulators)
- run on some
Thanks a lot for fixing this!
//D.S.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
> FIxed now, thanks for the report.
>
> Steve.
> --
> Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
> Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
>
__
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:55:09PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> Well that's one of the issues we need to resolve. Apache now compiles with
> OPENSSL_NO_SSL_INTERN but it needed some additional accessor functions before
> it could.
FWIW, Postfix TLS support predates OpenSSL 0.9.7, but the on
Only just joined the list and I see that there's been some follow up
stuff to my contribution, but I submitted a follow up pull request to
some of this stuff on GitHub
(https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/118). So probably some
duplication there :).
--
Felix - http://www.erbridge.co.uk/
On 2
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:12:53PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:29PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > @@ -1,21 +1,37 @@
> > -primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11]
> > -safe = False # Not sure if the period's right on safe primes.
> > +# Odd primes < 13
> > +#
> > +primes = [3, 5,
On Thu May 29 08:28:24 2014, noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Matt -
>
> I have not forgot about this I can't find the machine I wrote the
> code on (my place probably looks a lot like your place - different
> computers and laptops with different OSes all over the place).
My place does look a bit l
On Fri May 09 09:59:51 2014, s...@pdflib.com wrote:
> Am 09.05.14 00:53, schrieb Stephen Henson via RT:
> > On Thu May 08 15:49:11 2014, s...@pdflib.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I can confirm that with this patch applied my use case with
> >> X509_verify_cert() works as expected (misidentification of signi
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:29PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> @@ -1,21 +1,37 @@
> -primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11]
> -safe = False # Not sure if the period's right on safe primes.
> +# Odd primes < 13
> +#
> +primes = [3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19]
Maybe the comment is wrong?
Kurt
__
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:45:15PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> You didn't update the test...
You're right. The below should take care of that.
--
Viktor.
diff --git a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c b/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
index 2d66b61..df50305 100644
--- a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
+++ b/crypto/bn/bn_
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Richard Moore wrote:
> On 1 June 2014 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > > Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions.
> > Within openssl itself use macros if you want.
> > >
>
Hi David
Patch applied:
https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=d1e1aee
Many thanks for your contribution.
Matt
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing
You didn't update the test...
On 1 June 2014 21:26, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:14:00PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>
>> The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
>> "safe" modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might not
>> be co-prime t
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:14:00PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
> "safe" modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might not
> be co-prime to 2310.
>
> The patch below my signature addresses this problem.
Oops, previous
Steve Henson has comitted this here:
https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=4fdf917
Thanks
Matt
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List
The new prime generator does not ensure that generated primes are
"safe" modulo 2, 3, 5, 7 or 11. In particular (p-1)/2 might not
be co-prime to 2310.
The patch below my signature addresses this problem.
--
Viktor.
diff --git a/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c b/crypto/bn/bn_prime.c
index 2d66b61.
On 1 June 2014 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions.
> Within openssl itself use macros if you want.
> >
> > This has been on my list of things I want to see happe
On 01/06/14 19:38, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
>>> openssl itself use macros if you want.
>>
>> This has been
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:32:55PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> > Repurposing bits in this way is problematic if that bit meant something else
> > in any OpenSSL-1.x.y release (notional ABI). If the bit is from 0.9.x, and
> > was never used in 1.x.y, then it is OK.
> >
> > I think it is ac
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
> > openssl itself use macros if you want.
>
> This has been on my list of things I want to see happen for a long
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:47:30PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
>
> > > Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
> > > applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension
> > > by default. Only appli
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 01:39:54PM -0400, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Make structures opaque when possible and provide accessor functions. Within
> openssl itself use macros if you want.
This has been on my list of things I want to see happen for a long time
too. Together we removing some APIs. I also
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:47:30PM +0200, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
> > Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
> > applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension
> > by default. Only applications compiled against 1.0.1g or later
> > that use SS
Fixed now, ticket resolved.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.o
Fixed now, resolving ticket.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
>
> > I've updated OpenSSL so the padding extension is no longer used by default
> > and
> > the option SSL_OP_TLSEXT_PADDING enables it (it is part of the SSL_OP_ALL).
> > This
> Thanks. In particular, since SSL_OP_ALL is a compile-time constant,
> applications compiled with older releases will not send the extension by
> default. Only applications compiled against 1.0.1g or later that use
> SSL_OP_ALL, or specifically enable this work-around, will send the extension
The core team should come up with a list and announce the decision. SOON. Be
firm. Say something like "in xxx months, support for these platforms will be
dropped and we will start to remove that code." Encourage folks interested in
supporting those platforms to maintain a fork. I don't care wh
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:18:18PM +0200, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
> I've updated OpenSSL so the padding extension is no longer used by default and
> the option SSL_OP_TLSEXT_PADDING enables it (it is part of the SSL_OP_ALL).
> This resolves this issue as applications can now decide whether to
I've updated OpenSSL so the padding extension is no longer used by default and
the option SSL_OP_TLSEXT_PADDING enables it (it is part of the SSL_OP_ALL).
This resolves this issue as applications can now decided whether to use the
padding extension or not.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL p
Fixed in latest OpenSSL, ticket closed.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://w
Hello Shephen,
Thank you. I can't reproduce it either, the ticket may be closed.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dr. Stephen Henson
wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think it is not to be closed, the leak occurs.
> >
>
> Have you tried this with a re
FIxed now, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.ope
On Tue, May 27, 2014, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it is not to be closed, the leak occurs.
>
Have you tried this with a recent version of OpenSSL? I can no longer produce
a memory leak mentioned in PR#2745.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commer
Patch applied, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://www
Patch applied, thanks for the report.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL Project http://www
For a time period of days I've been attempting to chase down why
MBSTRING_UTF8 got utf-8 encoded strings turned into T.61 when
generating a CSR with a library, but were utf8strings when using the
openssl command line tool.
Finally found it.
crypto/asn1/a_strnid.c has the default global_mask set
On 01/06/14 08:28, Janpopan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there a list of currently supported platforms?
>
> Which platforms are deprecaded an could/should be removed in the
> sourcecode?
> MS-DOS?
> Windows 16 Bit?
> OS/2?
> Windows 95/98/ME?
> Windows NT/2000/XP?
Hi Jan
You raise an interesting an
Hi all,
is there a list of currently supported platforms?
Which platforms are deprecaded an could/should be removed in the
sourcecode?
MS-DOS?
Windows 16 Bit?
OS/2?
Windows 95/98/ME?
Windows NT/2000/XP?
Cheers
Jan
__
OpenSSL Pr
39 matches
Mail list logo
