Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "ex_libs".
Did you mean:
wx_libs
2007 Dec 18
3
Installation difficulties
...lib [default]
no-zlib-dynamic [default]
IsMK1MF=0
CC =gcc
CFLAG =-DOPENSSL_THREADS -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DTERMIOS
-DL_ENDIAN -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -march=i486 -Wall
-DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DSHA1_ASM -DMD5_ASM
-DRMD160_ASM -DAES_ASM
EX_LIBS =
CPUID_OBJ =x86cpuid-cof.o
BN_ASM =bn86-cof.o co86-cof.o
DES_ENC =dx86-cof.o yx86-cof.o
AES_ASM_OBJ =ax86-cof.o
BF_ENC =bx86-cof.o
CAST_ENC =cx86-cof.o
RC4_ENC =rx86-cof.o
RC5_ENC =r586-cof.o
MD5_OBJ_ASM =mx86-cof.o
SHA1_OBJ_ASM =sx86-cof.o s512s...
2002 May 25
2
mismatch against version of openssl, letter version brokeness
What risk exists in changing the check for the matching version of
openssl so that the final letter part of the version (e.g. 0.9.6c
vs. 0.9.6d) is ignored? Are there any security vulnerabilities in
such a thing? What if ssh(d) is linked against an older _letter_
version such as 0.9.6c and now finds the library is 0.9.6d? Is
there a security risk in that? Surely a major API change would not