Marko Kreen writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:13:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should fix and back-patch these two specific bugs. The
>> openssl.c change sounds like it might be something for HEAD only.
> Now I looked more in-depth and seems my comments were off - error
> detectio
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 07:06 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:54, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
>
On 01/27/2012 07:06 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:54, Marko Kreen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>>> wrote:
On 01/27/2012 04:20 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 201
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:54, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 04:20 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah,
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 18:54, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 04:20 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, it should be fixed. But note that "random data" is part of
>>>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 04:20 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, it should be fixed. But note that "random data" is part of
>> decrypt() spec - the validation it can do is a joke.
>>
>>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:13:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen writes:
> > pgcrypto.c is easily fixable and internal.c has proper checks.
> > But openssl.c does not. And I have a bigger openssl.c cleanup
> > pending. So I would prefer to add missing checks to cleaned-up
> > openssl.c an
On 01/27/2012 04:20 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
>>> from some looking at the code in pgcrypto.c it seems to me that the
>>> coding pattern in most functions there only checks for errors from the
>>> correspondin
Marko Kreen writes:
> pgcrypto.c is easily fixable and internal.c has proper checks.
> But openssl.c does not. And I have a bigger openssl.c cleanup
> pending. So I would prefer to add missing checks to cleaned-up
> openssl.c and post them together (soonish).
> But I'm bit unclear about fate of
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 01:37:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
> > from some looking at the code in pgcrypto.c it seems to me that the
> > coding pattern in most functions there only checks for errors from the
> > corresponding initialization function, in the case of say
Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
> from some looking at the code in pgcrypto.c it seems to me that the
> coding pattern in most functions there only checks for errors from the
> corresponding initialization function, in the case of say decrypt_iv()
> that means only the IV and the key are actually "va
On 01/23/2012 08:40 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> We are using the raw decryption features of contrib/pgcrypto here to
> decode certain AES128 encrypted data. However depending on the data to
> decode and what statements have been executed in the same session before
> we are seeing different (a
12 matches
Mail list logo
