| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private keys and/or callback functions which directly correspond to their
SSL_CTX_xxx() counterparts but work on a per-connection basis. This is needed
for applications which have to configure certificates on a per-connection
basis (e.g. Apache+mod_ssl) instead of a per-context basis (e.g.
s_server).
For the RSA certificate situation is makes no difference, but for the DSA
certificate situation this fixes the "no shared cipher" problem where the
OpenSSL cipher selection procedure failed because the temporary keys were not
overtaken from the context and the API provided no way to reconfigure them.
The new functions now let applications reconfigure the stuff and they are in
detail: SSL_need_tmp_RSA, SSL_set_tmp_rsa, SSL_set_tmp_dh,
SSL_set_tmp_rsa_callback and SSL_set_tmp_dh_callback. Additionally a new
non-public-API function ssl_cert_instantiate() is used as a helper function
and also to reduce code redundancy inside ssl_rsa.c.
Submitted by: Ralf S. Engelschall
Reviewed by: Ben Laurie
|
|
within SSL_MKEY_MASK or SSL_AUTH_MASK, they are within SSL_EXP_MASK. So, the
original variable has to be used instead of the already masked variable.
Submitted by: Richard Levitte <levitte@stacken.kth.se>
Reviewed by: Ralf S. Engelschall
|
|
without -debug option to mk1mf.pl. Change _export to is_export (_export is
a reserved word under VC++). Add yucky function prototype function pointer
casts. Sanitise the included files in crypto/x509v3.
Also changed ssleay.exe target to openssl.exe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Eric A. Young, (from changes to C2Net SSLeay, integrated by Mark Cox)]
Fix so that the version number in the master secret, when passed
via RSA, checks that if TLS was proposed, but we roll back to SSLv3
(because the server will not accept higher), that the version number
is 0x03,0x01, not 0x03,0x00
[Eric A. Young, (from changes to C2Net SSLeay, integrated by Mark Cox)]
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
