[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Wed Oct 27 17:44:48 2004]:
> rt> Maybe the use of LD_PRELOAD is worth a thought to be put into the
> rt> OpenSSL test procedures (make test).
>
> I'm thinking you're right.
I've now added a definition of LD_PRELOAD among the definitions of
LD_LIBRARY_PATH and friends in tes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:00:21 +0200 (CEST), Richard
Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
richard> deengert> One of the problems is that different sub releases of
richard> deengert> OpenSSL use the same library names 0.9.7 where as a new
richard> deengert
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:43:57 -0500, "Douglas E. Engert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
deengert> The man pages for ld on Linux say -rpath is used first. This
deengert> is unfortunate ...
but makes sense from a security point of view (look up LD_LIBRARY_PATH
with google
Andreas M. Kirchwitz via RT wrote:
Hello!
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> I just found an email discussion that seems to cover what's happening
> to you:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2000-01/msg00046.html
Yeah, it seems like I'm hit by exactly the same issue. ;-)
Hello!
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote:
> I just found an email discussion that seems to cover what's happening
> to you:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2000-01/msg00046.html
Yeah, it seems like I'm hit by exactly the same issue. ;-)
As it seems, Linux behaves this
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:18:35 +0200 (METDST), "Andreas
M. Kirchwitz via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hi,
I just found an email discussion that seems to cover what's happening
to you:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2000-01/msg00046.html
rt> On Solaris, LD
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:18:35 +0200 (METDST), "Andreas
M. Kirchwitz via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hi,
I just found an email discussion that seems to cover what's happening
to you:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2000-01/msg00046.html
rt> On Solaris, LD_
Hello!
Jack Lloyd via RT wrote:
> Here's a WAG: ldd the test binaries on the FC2 box -- it's possible they ended
> up getting linked with the FC2 OpenSSL libs.
Checking the "evp_test" binary with "ldd" is a very good point and
leads to an interesting result.
On both, Solaris and Linux, "ldd
Andreas M. Kirchwitz via RT wrote:
Hi OpenSSL team!
[...]
OpenSSL 0.9.7d successfully completes the tests. (No wonder,
"test/evptests.txt" doesn't contain AES-128-CFB1 stuff. ;-)
Does it mean that OpenSSL is broken? Or does it mean that
the test procedure is broken in this respect?
Tests complete s
Here's a WAG: ldd the test binaries on the FC2 box -- it's possible they ended
up getting linked with the FC2 OpenSSL libs.
If that's not it, I'm out of ideas. :)
-Jack
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:57:08PM +0200, Andreas M. Kirchwitz via RT wrote:
>
> Hi OpenSSL team!
>
> I downloaded the new
Hi OpenSSL team!
I downloaded the new OpenSSL 0.9.7e and compiled it on various
platforms. On Solaris 9 (SPARC) with GCC 3.2.3, everything is
fine.
On all my Linux boxes with Fedora Core 2 (Kernel 2.6.8,
GCC 3.3.3), "make test" fails after four of the
"AES-256-CBC(encrypt/decrypt)" tests as foll
11 matches
Mail list logo
