Opened at 2013-04-19T19:28:23Z
Last modified at 2014-07-29T22:13:13Z
#89 new enhancement
see if we should copy in any of the Crypto++ patches from the 5.6.2 cycle
| Reported by: | zooko | Owned by: | sneves |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
| Version: | 0.5.29 | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Launchpad Bug: |
Description
We are using a copy of Crypto++ which is (if I recall correctly) v5.6.1 plus a patch or two that was committed to upstream, Crypto++ since then. It would be good to review the patches that have been committed to Crypto++ upstream since we branched and see if any of them would address any known issues in our usage.
If the Crypto++ SVN isn't working, you can try this web-browseable bzr mirror: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~zooko/cryptopp/trunk/changes/
That thing is automatically updated by launchpad.net to mirror the latest SVN version from sourceforge.net.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed at 2013-04-19T19:54:23Z by zooko
- Owner set to sneves
comment:2 Changed at 2013-04-20T01:35:01Z by zooko
comment:3 Changed at 2014-07-22T19:05:06Z by zooko
Added a more specific ticket #97 to adopt to clang-portability patches.
comment:4 Changed at 2014-07-29T22:13:13Z by daira
Eek, this has languished for 16 months. We should really keep more up-to-date with changes in Crypto++, otherwise we're liable to miss security fixes.
I just found this bug report on github:
https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/pycryptopp/issues/21