Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 10:55:23AM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:27:23PM +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 25 14:16:27 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Thu May 25 14:10:48 2006, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
But openssl's base64 can't decode the string, so perhaps there is
something
wrong:
$ echo -n
bm9uY2U9IkVZMEI5anR4NlNsc0tQSGhHTGovNmI4WW1qQ3BadDZCL1RGUXAva21kUEU9IixyZWFsbT0icGFuZG9yYS5jb25lY3RpdmEiLHFvcD0iYXV0aCxhdXRoLWludCxhdXRoLWNvbmYiLGNpcGhlcj0icmM0LTQwLHJjNC01NixyYzQsZGVzLDNkZXMiLG1heGJ1Zj00MDk2LGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgsYWxnb3JpdGhtPW1kNS1zZXNz
| openssl base64 -d
$
Didn't somebody point out a bug with openSSL's base64 decoder a
while back? This all rings a bell with me. I think it's a
line-length issue or something.
I'll see if I can track down the mail.
Ah, not a mail.
http://lookit.typepad.com/lookit/2006/04/lame_openssl_bu.html
This looks like your bug.
Is sasl using this de/encoder? Or is it just an issue with the command-line
openssl tool and it has nothing to do with this thread?
The imtest failure is here:
saslresult = sasl_decode64(str, strlen(str),
*line, len, (unsigned *) linelen);
if (saslresult != SASL_OK) {
I added a printf there and the result I get is "1", which means SASL_CONTINUE.
Does this mean the b64 string is too short or incomplete?
Yes. It means that the sasl_decode64() input was not multiple of 4.
