libdes (which is still used out there) or other des implementations,
the OpenSSL DES functions are renamed to begin with DES_ instead of
des_. Compatibility routines are provided and declared by including
openssl/des_old.h. Those declarations are the same as were in des.h
when the OpenSSL project started, which is exactly how libdes looked
at that time, and hopefully still looks today.
The compatibility functions will be removed in some future release, at
the latest in version 1.0.
DES's keyschedules.
I know these two should be separate, and I'll back out the DES changes if they
are deemed to be an error.
Note that there is a memory leak lurking in SSL somewhere in this version.
des_encrypt() and des_encrypt() defined on some systems (Solaris and
Unixware and maybe others), we rename des_encrypt() to des_encrypt1().
This should have very little impact on external software unless
someone has written a mode of DES, since that's all des_encrypt() is
meant for.
duplicated in cbc_enc.c (without IV updating) and in des_enc.c
As pointed out by others on the openssl-dev list, des_cbc_encrypt (without
IV updating; defined in cbc_enc.c) exists only for historical reasons:
des_ncbc_encrypt should be used instead (and the caller does not have
to manually update the IV).
If des_cbc_enrypt is not needed for backwards compatibility, the
definition of des_ncbc_encrypt should be put back into des_enc.c, and
both cbc_enc.c and ncbc_enc.c can be deleted.
If des_cbc_encrypt *is* needed for backwards compatibility, its behaviour
obviously should not change (i.e., don't add IV updating).
(meaning pointer to char) to des_cblock * (meaning pointer to
array with 8 char elements), which allows the compiler to
do more typechecking. (The changed argument types were of type
des_cblock * back in SSLeay, and a lot of ugly casts were
used then to turn them into pointers to elements; but it can be
done without those casts.)
Introduce new type const_des_cblock -- before, the pointers rather
than the elements pointed to were declared const, and for
some reason gcc did not complain about this (but some other
compilers did).
