- 31 7月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 27 7月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
-
- 10 7月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
for encrypt?).
-
- 09 7月, 2001 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
Worth around 5% for encrypt. Slows down decrypt slightly, but I expect to regain that later.
-
由 Ben Laurie 提交于
-
- 14 2月, 2001 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Add -nopad option to enc command. Update docs.
-
- 31 5月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
More EVP cipher revision. Change EVP_SealInit() and EVP_OpenInit() to handle cipher parameters. Make it possible to set RC2 and RC5 params. Make RC2 ASN1 code use the effective key bits and not the key length. TODO: document how new API works.
-
- 30 5月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Declare ciphers in terms of macros. This reduces the amount of code and places each block cipher EVP definition in a single file instead of being spread over 4 files.
-
- 28 5月, 2000 1 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Remove duplicated code in EVP.
-
- 27 5月, 2000 2 次提交
-
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Second phase of EVP cipher overhaul. Change functions like EVP_EncryptUpdate() so they now return a value. These normally have software only implementations which cannot fail so this was acceptable. However ciphers can be implemented in hardware and these could return errors.
-
由 Dr. Stephen Henson 提交于
Beginnings of EVP cipher overhaul. This should eventually enhance and tidy up the EVP interface. This patch adds initial support for variable length ciphers and changes S/MIME code to use this. Some other library functions need modifying to support use of modified cipher parameters. Also need to change all the cipher functions that should return error codes, but currenly don't. And of course it needs extensive testing...
-
- 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: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- 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
-