1. 25 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  2. 24 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  3. 21 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  4. 20 1月, 1999 4 次提交
  5. 19 1月, 1999 2 次提交
  6. 18 1月, 1999 3 次提交
  7. 17 1月, 1999 3 次提交
    • B
      Oops. Missing NULL frees. · f9e6fac3
      Ben Laurie 提交于
      f9e6fac3
    • B
      Generate an error on an invalid directory. · 2c1ef383
      Ben Laurie 提交于
      2c1ef383
    • D
      Time to blow up the source tree :-) This is the beginning of support for · f6aed2cd
      Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
      GeneralizedTime. At several points PKIX specifies that GeneralizedTime can be
      used but OpenSSL doesn't currently support it. This patch adds several files
      and a bunch of functions.
      
      Of interest is the ASN1_TIME structure and its related functions. At several
      points certificates, CRLs et al specify that a time can be expressed as a
      choice of UTCTime and GeneralizedTime. Currently OpenSSL interprets this
      (wrongly) as UTCTime because GeneralizedTime isn't supported. The ASN1_TIME
      stuff provides this functionality.
      
      Still todo is to trace which cert and CRL points need an ASN1_TIME and modify
      the utilities appropriately and of course fix all the bugs.
      
      Note new OpenSSL copyright in the new file a_time.c. I didn't put it in
      a_gentm.c because it is a minimally modified form a_utctm.c .
      
      Since this adds new files and error codes you will need to do a 'make errors'
      at the top level to add the new codes.
      f6aed2cd
  8. 15 1月, 1999 1 次提交
    • D
      · 27eb622b
      Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
      Submitted by: Neil Costigan <neil.costigan@celocom.com>
      PR:
      27eb622b
  9. 13 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  10. 11 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  11. 09 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  12. 08 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  13. 06 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  14. 05 1月, 1999 4 次提交
  15. 04 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  16. 03 1月, 1999 5 次提交
  17. 02 1月, 1999 5 次提交
  18. 01 1月, 1999 3 次提交
  19. 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
    • R
      Fix version stuff: · 9cb0969f
      Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
      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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      9cb0969f