full-disclosure - OpenSSL - dynamically linked binaries?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: janus at volny.cz (Honza Vlach)
Subject: OpenSSL - dynamically linked binaries?

Sorry for choosing bad mailing list, I just thought that this issue would
be more appropriate in this list, because it concerns many other
software, than just openssl.

Secondly, this concerns more systems, one of them is LFS (Linux From
Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org as of 20031212), my Slackware
Linux and several other machines. I'm trying to update it manually, and
because that `d' is just patchlevel, it should be binary compatible.
Therefore no other recompilation should be necessary. The question is,
why it doesn't behave as expected ...

I was just asking, what is the general practice, what do people here
recompile when new openssl version is issued etc.

Thanks for your time,
Honza Vlach

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 10:57:53AM -0000, John.Airey@...b.org.uk wrote:
> From: John.Airey@...b.org.uk
> To: janus@...ny.cz
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] OpenSSL - dynamically linked binaries?
> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:57:53 -0000
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
> 
> First of all this is a question for the openssl mailing list. (see
> http://www.openssl.org/support/) Second, I'd be 99% certain that you are
> running Red Hat and have missed the instructions on building in the openssl
> FAQ http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#BUILD8. If I am correct, then
> it's best to use the Red Hat supplied patches. However, if you are using an
> unsupported Red Hat version (ie anything before 9), then a patch hasn't been
> released yet. There is a legacy project for supporting those versions at
> http://fedoralegacy.org/.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040322/def9108e/attachment.bin