- 30 4月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Geoff Thorpe 提交于
ENGINE code does not return a default, set an error.
-
- 20 2月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 27 11月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Geoff Thorpe 提交于
the RSA_METHOD's "init()" handler is called, and is cleaned up after the RSA_METHOD's "finish()" handler is called. Custom RSA_METHODs may wish to initialise contexts and other specifics in the RSA structure upon creation and that was previously not possible - "ex_data" is where that stuff should go and it was being initialised too late for it to be used.
-
- 09 11月, 2000 2 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
away now...
-
- 07 11月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
-
- 27 10月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
At the same time, add VMS support for Rijndael.
-
- 02 6月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Richard Levitte 提交于
like Malloc, Realloc and especially Free conflict with already existing names on some operating systems or other packages. That is reason enough to change the names of the OpenSSL memory allocation macros to something that has a better chance of being unique, like prepending them with OPENSSL_. This change includes all the name changes needed throughout all C files.
-
- 20 4月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Geoff Thorpe 提交于
initialised, at which point an appropriate default was chosen. This meant a call to RSA_get_default_method might have returned FALSE. This change fixes that; now any called to RSA_new(), RSA_new_method(NULL), or RSA_get_default_method() will ensure that a default is chosen if it wasn't already.
-
- 05 2月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
temporary BIGNUMs. BN_CTX still uses a fixed number of BIGNUMs, but the BN_CTX implementation could now easily be changed.
-
- 24 1月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Tidy up CRYPTO_EX_DATA structures.
-
- 09 9月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
-
- 30 6月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
RSA structure internals.
-
- 24 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Bodo Möller 提交于
Submitted by: Reviewed by: PR:
-
- 20 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ulf Möller 提交于
-
- 18 4月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 22 3月, 1999 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 31 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- 30 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 23 12月, 1998 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 22 12月, 1998 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
- 21 12月, 1998 3 次提交
-
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-
由 Ralf S. Engelschall 提交于
-