One possiblity is open in exclusive mode. The problem is that O_EXCL is only
part of open(2), not fopen(3). And we have to use fopen() because we need the
b mode for binary output on platforms that require it. So I don't think that
will work, either.
On 13/06/2015 8:43 pm, Hanno Böck wrote:
Serious question: Is there any valid use case for heartbeats in TLS or
DTLS?
(With valid use case I mean something like I use it for this system,
not answers like you could use it for xy)
I don't use them for anything. We started to implement them for
Hi,
Please find attached a patch against the current git master that fixes
some problems in TLS (and DTLS) heartbeats. This patch supercedes the
original pull request I made closer to the time of heartbleed
(https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/66), which I neglected to
report to rt.
The
Hi
While using https://github.com/libhostile/libhostile/, with
hostile.sh -m 100 curl -L http://...
(It LD_PRELOADs through that script and makes malloc fail (by returning
ENOMEM before actual malloc is invoked) every 100 invocations or so).
I started noticing a crash in every 5-6 invocations.
Nice to see this continues build. Have you guys thought about creating one
build for static code analysis (f.e. integrating cppcheck)?
So the FB folks seem to be interested in helping with infer, which is neat (see
RT 3903). We periodically look at Coverity. What's involved in doing
I was wondering if there is a document anywhere describing what type of
testing you do before releasing a new version of OpenSSL?
Matt already gave some answers. Our biggest regression test is make test at
the top-level. We've recently gotten much better at adding more tests...
Any help
Serious question: Is there any valid use case for heartbeats in TLS or DTLS?
For TLS, I can't see one.
I would be happy if the code vanished for DTLS. :)
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
The script test/testssl uses the local keywork in test_cipher() since
commit
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/e8356e32aed70d139eae2d05aeaeb160509262aa
(master, merged at least to 1.0.1 and 1.0.2).
This keyword is non-POSIX but the script is supposed to be run with
/bin/sh. E.g. on
Recently the OpenSSL development community has expressed renewed
interest in having the document finalized as an RFC and they seem to
consider this to be a prerequisite of BLAKE2's adoption into the main branch
of OpenSSL
This is not true. The topic of RFC-or-not has never come up in any
On Jun 13, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
Recently the OpenSSL development community has expressed renewed
interest in having the document finalized as an RFC and they seem to
consider this to be a prerequisite of BLAKE2's adoption into the main branch
of OpenSSL
So, the google approach is that if no protocol match is found, the server
replies WITHOUT the alpn header. They don't like no_app_protocol, to put it
mildly :)
thoughts?
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
Dear RFC-ISE and others,
We submitted the specification of The BLAKE2 Cryptographic Hash and
MAC as an informational RFC on February 1, 2015. The document is
currently in its third revision after various contributors have read
it and pointed out minor typographic errors in the original text.
Great. Thanks for letting us know. Closing this ticket.
Matt
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Thanks. Seems the simplest thing is just use $1 and $2 ... Will be fixed in
master, and 1.0.0/1/2
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
14 matches
Mail list logo
