Send openssl-users mailing list submissions to
openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
openssl-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
openssl-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of openssl-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: undefined symbol: OSSL_provider_init when running "make
test" for OpenSSL 3.0 (Lee Staniforth)
2. RE: [openssl-1.1.1l] TLS1.2 Server responses with Alert
(Michael Wojcik)
3. Re: [openssl-1.1.1l] TLS1.2 Server responses with Alert
(Mark Hack)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 13:46:49 +0000
From: Lee Staniforth <Lee.Staniforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Matt Caswell <matt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: undefined symbol: OSSL_provider_init when running "make
test" for OpenSSL 3.0
Message-ID:
<DM6PR07MB8028DD6128102487938131E882469@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks very much, Matt and defulger.
Removing the "-fvisibility=hidden" has enabled the tests to pass.
I'll now have to see how my application (which is statically linked to OpenSSL) fairs.
Lee
From: Matt Caswell <matt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 23 December 2021 10:13
To: Lee Staniforth <Lee.Staniforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: undefined symbol: OSSL_provider_init when running "make test" for OpenSSL 3.0
On 21/12/2021 15:09, Lee Staniforth wrote: > ./Configure linux-x86_64 no-shared -m64 -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden Try dropping "-fvisibility=hidden". I can replicate this problem when using no-shared and
External (matt@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:matt@xxxxxxxxxxx>)
Report This Email<
https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=c3luY2hyb25vc3MvbGVlLnN0YW5pZm9ydGhAc3luY2hyb25vc3MuY29tL2NiZGFiM2RjZDIzNWI3NDllOWQzYzRlYzBlYTA3Y2I1LzE2NDAyNTQzODIuMzc=#key=1fa1e349d7396284bf7cc883faec871a>
FAQ<
https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/> Protection by INKY<
https://www.inky.com>
On 21/12/2021 15:09, Lee Staniforth wrote:
> ./Configure linux-x86_64 no-shared -m64 -fPIC -fvisibility=hidden
Try dropping "-fvisibility=hidden". I can replicate this problem when
using no-shared and -fvisibility=hidden. If I drop the
"-fvisibility=hidden" the problem goes away.
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20211231/0f037481/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:05:26 +0000
From: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx" <openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [openssl-1.1.1l] TLS1.2 Server responses with Alert
Message-ID:
<DM6PR18MB27005C4E44DE291D1C26B9EEF9469@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> From: openssl-users <openssl-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ma Zhenhua
> Sent: Thursday, 30 December, 2021 23:59
> On the SSL/TLS server, there's one error as follows.
> "SSL Error(118) - no suitable signature algorithm"
Debugging handshake failures isn't my area of expertise, but I note both ClientHellos include a signature_algorithms extension, and the contents are quite different. In particular, the successful ClientHello includes the Signature Hash Algorithm Hash and Signature
Hash Algorithm Signature parameters, while the failing one doesn't.
The failing one also includes a signature_algorithms_cert extension, while the successful one does not. I don't know offhand how the algorithms specified in that extension correspond to the signature-algorithm OIDs in signatures, but the server's certificate
has 1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 (sha256WithRSAEncryption) which seems like it ought to correspond to either rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 or rsa_pss_pss_sha256. (Apparently those are both RSA-PSS with SHA256, as the name implies, and the difference between the two of them
is whether the public key is encoded using the rsaEncryption format in the certificate, or the id-RSASSA-PSS format. The failing client is saying it understands both, AIUI.)
So my guess would be the server is unhappy that the failing client's ClientHello doesn't include the parameters for the various supported signature schemes in its signature_algorithms extension. But that's just a guess, and I don't know how you'd fix it.
