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
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://
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
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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 reu
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 enc
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 -
