CEST)
From: Otto Moerbeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BN_add_word bug
Hi,
I've been working with the big number lib from the open ssl crypto
library, and I have found the following problem, which is demons
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
Hi,
Moin Otto,
I've been working with the big number lib from the open ssl crypto
library, and I have found the following problem, which is demonstrated by
the program below (you may have to fix the includes if you test it on
another platform than OpenBSD).
Summary:
It
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Nils Larsch wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Moin Otto,
>
>
> > I've been working with the big number lib from the open ssl crypto
> > library, and I have found the following problem, which is demonstrated by
> > the program below (you may have to fix the inclu
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
Hmmm, did not try your patch yet, but here's another interesting case that
doesn't use BN_bn2dec():
int g(void)
{
BIGNUM *a, *b;
a = BN_new();
BN_set_word(a, 0);
b = BN_new();
BN_set_word(b, 0);
BN_add_word(b, 0);
ret
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Nils Larsch wrote:
> BN_cmp has a similiar problem. BN_cmp does not check if the top value
> is really correct (but it uses the top value nonetheless) i.e. leading
> zeros matters for BN_cmp. I think the best solution to avoid this is
> to let BN_add_word (BN_sub_word) immed
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
OK, that would amount to the fixes below:
- in BN_cmp, call bn_fix_top just before comparing the two tops.
Not really necessary as the normal BN_* functions which change the
value of the bignum should always ensure that the top value is
correct (i.e. as small as possible)
On September 25, 2003 03:33 am, Nils Larsch wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
>
> > OK, that would amount to the fixes below:
> >
> > - in BN_cmp, call bn_fix_top just before comparing the two tops.
>
> Not really necessary as the normal BN_* functions which change the
> value of the bignum shou
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> On September 25, 2003 03:33 am, Nils Larsch wrote:
> > Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >
> >
> > > OK, that would amount to the fixes below:
> > >
> > > - in BN_cmp, call bn_fix_top just before comparing the two tops.
> >
> > Not really necessary as the nor
Hi there,
On September 25, 2003 02:29 pm, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> > I would go one step further and suggest that BN_cmp() and operations
> > like it that should treat their inputs as "const" should not modify
> > the BIGNUMs at all. Fixing BIGNUMs wherever
Hi Geoff,
Geoff Thorpe wrote:
I understand that, and if someone else is prepared to verify and assure
themselves that the patch is acceptable, I won't object to them
committing it. However, I don't *like* us committing more hacks when
there are already too many, and your bug-report and pat
10 matches
Mail list logo
