Re: Evp_Encrypt_Init Segfault

I somehow corrupted the ctx object by overshooting the malloced area as Mark had pointed out. The problem is solved now, thanks, felix __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing

Re: Evp_Encrypt_Init Segfault

Girish Venkatachalam wrote: >Try calling EVP_CIPHER_CTX_cleanup(&ctx) at the end... > > > I have tried this, does not change the situation. gdb output is 200 EVP_EncryptInit(&ctx, EVP_bf_ecb(), NULL, NULL); (gdb) step Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0xb7df82fb

Evp_Encrypt_Init Segfault

Hi, the following code executes once, and does fine. Calling the function a second time gives a segfault during the call marked by "-->" unsigned char *encrypt_message(unsigned char *message, int inl, int *outl) { EVP_CIPHER_CTX ctx; EVP_CIPHER_CTX_init(&ctx); -->EVP_Encry

change key after EVP_Encrypt_init(...,key,..)

Hi, char[] key = "abcde"; EVP_Encrypt_init(...,key,..) key = "cdefg" Will I have to recall EVP_Encrypt_Init? Thanks, Felix __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List

Re: RAND_Load_File using /dev/random

> It depends upon how secure you need to be and your threat model. Likely, >128 bytes is more than enough. If security is not critical and you're just >experimenting, switching to '/dev/urandom' should be fine. > > Yes i have done this.. > If you have control over the systems your

RAND_Load_File using /dev/random

Hi, my book tells me to call RAND_load_file("/dev/random", 1024) this appears to take much too long. is there anything wrong? how many bytes do i need? thanks, felix __ OpenSSL Project http://www

compiler warning EVP_bf_cfb()

Hi, this should be a oneliner, my first steps in openssl programming. the line EVP_CIPHER *blowfish_cbc = EVP_bf_cbc(); gives me a warning that I do not understand: warning: initialization discards qualifiers from pointer target type thanks for any help, felix __

Re: sslv3 alert bad certificate

hi, as far as browsing the certificate ('folding' and 'unfolding' certificate entries) in the mozilla popup it seems like this: >Version: 4 (0x3) > > is invalid. as far as i have read there is no version 4 for X509 certificates. selfsign.c: X509_set_version(x,3); sets the Certificate

sslv3 alert bad certificate

e i receive a sslv3 alert bad certificate what are now the differences between a "properly working" self signed certificate and the one that i use? thanks for any help. felix dorner __ OpenSSL Project

Re: self signed X509 without interaction

I looked especially at demos/selfsign.c and think it is conceptually not very hard to understand. (my c skills however...) Anyway I think i will get allong with this. Thanks a lot so far. Felix Dorner __ OpenSSL Project

self signed X509 without interaction

hi, i would like to write some code (using the openssl/crypto libs) that - creates a keypair - creates a self signed X509 certificate for/with that keypair and uses predefined strings for the certificate attributes, means there will be no user interaction. i think i can manage to create the k