On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:22 AM Salz, Rich via openssl-users
wrote:
> Hm, so DSO support is a requirement for legacy crypto now? That probably
> needs to be made explicit, and see if the project gets pushback.
It would mean legacy alg support would not exist for Node.js binary
distributions, bu
Hm, so DSO support is a requirement for legacy crypto now? That probably needs
to be made explicit, and see if the project gets pushback.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:27 PM Richard Levitte wrote:
> Yes, running from the DESTDIR "installation" gets you into trouble.
> DESTDIR is intended to be a staging directory, i.e. a place to put
Fair enough, I don't have to use DESTDIR, I configure with openssldir
and prefix set to a sandbox now.
OK I see, thanks.
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:27 PM Matt Caswell wrote:
> liblegacy.a is an internal artifact! You're not supposed to link your
> applications against it!
>
> You are supposed to link against libcrypto normally. If legacy.so isn't
> in the default install location then make sure the
liblegacy.a is an internal artifact! You're not supposed to link your
applications against it!
You are supposed to link against libcrypto normally. If legacy.so isn't
in the default install location then make sure the OPENSSL_MODULES
environment variable is pointing at its directory.
Matt
On 01
Reminder that in git master and 3.0.0, CAST5 gives the wrong output:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11459 (this proof of concept was
made before you moved CAST5 to liblegacy, so just put
OSSL_PROVIDER_load(nullptr, "legacy"); in there to make it work)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:30 PM Ope
When I configure using "./config enable-legacy" it creates
providers/liblegacy.a, then in the program I link with it,
OSSL_PROVIDER_load fails (returns NULL).
When I configure using "./config enable-legacy -static" it works as
expected.
However, building with -static fails on OSS-Fuzz when buildi
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of
> Dan Fulger
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 08:03
>
> off topic:
>
> "till" is correct and older than "until".
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/till
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/till
> line 786915 in file
off topic:
"till" is correct and older than "until".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/till
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/till
line 786915 in file http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/673/pg673.txt
and all four paper dictionaries I have in my home (two of them do not even
mention
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:36 AM Richard Levitte wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:35:14 +0200,
> Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:15 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:26:05PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - DH_bits(dh) (used for logging o
On 30/04/2020 22:44, Matt Caswell wrote:
> This appears to be a bug in perl. You have a very old version of perl
> (the oldest we support is 5.10.0). It's probably worth trying to upgrade it.
I've seen a very similar (but not quite the same) crash in an older
version of perl on a different plat
11 matches
Mail list logo
