Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[Bug 1991] New: openssl version checking needs updating"
2014 Mar 20
2
[Bug 2212] New: openssl version check should ignore status nibble
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2212
Bug ID: 2212
Summary: openssl version check should ignore status nibble
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 6.5p1
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: Miscellaneous
Assignee:
2002 Jul 27
1
[Patch] Improve diags for "OpenSSL headers match library" configure test
Hello All,
After seeing what is probably the zillionth "OpenSSL headers don't
match library" bug report I made the following mod to configure.ac. It
always writes the versions of the library and headers to config.log and
prints them to stdout if they don't match.
Hopefully this will help diagnose these problems in future. Example
output below.
-Daz.
$ ./configure
[snip]
2001 Mar 22
3
Improper (?) OpenSSL version mismatch(was RE: OpenSSH_2.5.1p1 - RH 6.2)
Well, I've finally gotten around to compiling
and testing OpenSSH 2.5.2p1, in order to update
the contrib/solaris packaging scripts.
Somehow on my test system, I'm getting errors
that indicate that I've still got some old copy
of OpenSSL being found somewhere...but I can't
for the life of me tell where. The compile went
fine (it found the OpenSSL 0.9.5a libraries that
I had
2002 Jan 10
0
An openssl shared library versioning problem (fwd)
Hi,
Below a message I had originally sent to openssl-bugs.
The version mismatch mentioned below was
OpenSSL 0x0090603f vs. OpenSSL 0x0090601f
Meanwhile Richard Levitte <levitte at stacken.kth.se> has sent me the
following:
>>>>>>>>> Begin excerpt from levitte (first msg.)
peb> If, on the other hand, the libraries from 0.9.6a and 0.9.6c are
peb> binary
2016 Nov 02
0
v2.2.26.0 released
On 2016-11-02, Aki Tuomi <aki.tuomi at dovecot.fi> wrote:
> If the standard way works, I am happy to include the original patch I
> sent, amended so that it checks for presence of LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER.
> If they keep this promise, then we should have no worries about things
> breaking up.
Diff below is what I've added to OpenBSD ports.
The libressl API is not cast in
2005 Nov 20
0
[PATCH] Solaris 10 and missing OpenSSL functions >128bit
Hi all.
Solaris 10's default libcrypto does not have support for AES 192 and 256
bit functions. The attached patch, against -current, and based partially
on an earlier one by djm, will use OpenSSH's builtin rijndael code for
all AES crypto functions and thus will allow it to build and function
on Solaris 10 without the extra crypto packages (SUNWcry, SUNWcryr)
or a locally built OpenSSL.
2013 Jul 25
122
[Bug 2130] New: Bugs intended to be fixed in 6.4
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2130
Bug ID: 2130
Summary: Bugs intended to be fixed in 6.4
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: -current
Hardware: Other
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: Miscellaneous
Assignee: unassigned-bugs at
2013 Jan 18
0
Inconsisten declaration of ssh_aes_ctr_iv() (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:19:35 +1100 (EST)
From: Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org>
To: Iain Morgan <Iain.Morgan at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Inconsisten declaration of ssh_aes_ctr_iv()
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Iain Morgan wrote:
> > Could you tell me the declaration of the function pointer do_cipher in
> > OpenSSL's evp.h on your
2018 Oct 14
4
Call for testing: OpenSSH 7.9
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Jakub Jelen wrote:
> Something like this can be used to properly initialize new OpenSSL
> versions:
>
> @@ -70,12 +70,19 @@ ssh_compatible_openssl(long headerver, long libver)
> void
> ssh_OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms(void)
> {
> +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
> OpenSSL_add_all_algorithms();
>
> /* Enable use of crypto
2004 Apr 23
1
Proposed RST patch
Here's my proposed patch to change RST handling so that ESTABLISHED
connections are subject to strict RST checking, but connections in other
states are only subject to the "within the window" check. Part 2 of the
patch is simply a patch to netstat so that it displays the statistic.
As expected, it's very straightforward, the only real question is what to
call the statistic...
2013 Jul 06
1
[PATCH] login-common: Add support for ECDH/ECDHE cipher suites
# HG changeset patch
# User David Hicks <david at hicks.id.au>
# Date 1373085976 -36000
# Sat Jul 06 14:46:16 2013 +1000
# Node ID ccd83f38e4b484ae18f69ea08631eefcaf6a4a4e
# Parent 1fbac590b9d4dc05d81247515477bfe6192c262c
login-common: Add support for ECDH/ECDHE cipher suites
ECDH temporary key parameter selection must be performed during OpenSSL
context initialisation before ECDH and
2016 Dec 04
2
v2.2.27 released --- libressl
>openssl version
Libressl 2.4.4
Patch for dovecot:
perl -i -ple 's/^(#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L\s*)$/$1 || defined (LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER)/' ./src/lib-dcrypt/dcrypt-openssl.c;
perl -i -ple 's/^(#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L\s*)$/$1 || defined (LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER)/' ./src/lib-ssl-iostream/dovecot-openssl-common.c;
perl -i -ple 's/^(#if
1997 Nov 14
0
Linux IP fragment overlap bug (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Received: from brimstone.netspace.org (brimstone.netspace.org [128.148.157.143]) by blues.jpj.net (backatcha) with ESMTP id CAA13949; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 02:08:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown@netspace.org (port 25452 [128.148.157.6]) by brimstone.netspace.org with ESMTP id <818-20257>; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 01:41:22 -0500
Received: from NETSPACE.ORG by
2016 Nov 02
0
v2.2.26.0 released
After doing some testing by myself, I noticed that libressl, for some
unknown reason, defines
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x20000000L
No idea why they decided to advertise that they are OpenSSL v2.0.0. A
local fix, if you need one, is to use
#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER == 0x20000000L
#define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x1000100L
#endif
in dcrypt-openssl.c after includes.
Aki
On
2016 Nov 02
0
v2.2.26.0 released
It does work today, I am just bit worried that it will keep on breaking
with libressl as they evolve their API. I would personally like to avoid
more ifdef hell if possible...
Aki
On 02.11.2016 13:22, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Standard way to fix it (on the LibreSSL page) is to check for
> LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER - e.g. the patch attached which I think
> catches them all where
2016 Nov 02
2
v2.2.26.0 released
If the standard way works, I am happy to include the original patch I
sent, amended so that it checks for presence of LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER.
If they keep this promise, then we should have no worries about things
breaking up.
Aki
On 02.11.2016 14:24, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Indeed, which is why I use it.
>
> But it also is in the minority which is why I find it acceptable for
2016 Nov 02
0
v2.2.26.0 released
IMHO it would be acceptable to have a LibreSSL patch that is maintained
by the people who want it.
It's free software, and that kind of is the point of Open Source.
On 11/02/2016 04:36 AM, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> They have stated they are going to remain API compatible with 1.0.1h (or
> g, forget which they forked) - their new stuff is outside of libcrypto.
>
> On 11/02/2016
2016 Nov 02
0
v2.2.26.0 released
Indeed, which is why I use it.
But it also is in the minority which is why I find it acceptable for
FLOSS projects like dovecot to elect to only un-officially support
LibreSSL via a community maintained patch.
One of the reasons why OpenSSL was forked is because they were trying to
support so many platforms that it made the code a real mess. Don't want
the same to happen to another
2016 Nov 02
2
v2.2.26.0 released
They have stated they are going to remain API compatible with 1.0.1h (or
g, forget which they forked) - their new stuff is outside of libcrypto.
On 11/02/2016 04:25 AM, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> It does work today, I am just bit worried that it will keep on breaking
> with libressl as they evolve their API. I would personally like to avoid
> more ifdef hell if possible...
>
> Aki
>
2016 Nov 02
3
v2.2.26.0 released
Standard way to fix it (on the LibreSSL page) is to check for
LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER - e.g. the patch attached which I think catches
them all where needed. Note the word think.
It certainly appears to be working anyway with it.
On 11/02/2016 04:07 AM, Aki Tuomi wrote:
> After doing some testing by myself, I noticed that libressl, for some
> unknown reason, defines
>
> #define