AW: [openssl.org #3593] [BUG] 0.9.8 head introduces Win32 compile error C4146

2014-11-10 Thread Kraft, Matthias via RT
Confirmed. This one compiles without a warning. Thanks -- Matthias Kraft -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Kurt Roeckx via RT [mailto:r...@openssl.org] Gesendet: Freitag, 7. November 2014 21:55 An: Kraft, Matthias Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org Betreff: Re: [openssl.org #3593] [BUG] 0.9.8 head

TLS/SSL methods and protocol version selection

2014-11-10 Thread Kurt Roeckx
There seems to be great confusion on which method to use set up a TLS/SSL connection and I guess most of that has to do with history. I would like to simplify things. We currently seem to have methods for SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 documented, and TLSv1_1 and TLSv1_2 undocumented, and then a SSLv23

Re: TLS/SSL methods and protocol version selection

2014-11-10 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Po, 2014-11-10 at 13:38 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: There seems to be great confusion on which method to use set up a TLS/SSL connection and I guess most of that has to do with history. I would like to simplify things. We currently seem to have methods for SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 documented,

Re: TLS/SSL methods and protocol version selection

2014-11-10 Thread Matt Caswell
On 10/11/14 12:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I would also like to get rid of SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 and instead have a way to specify the minimum and maximum supported version by those methods, because that's really what people want to do as far as I know. The default should assume the maximum supported

Re: TLS/SSL methods and protocol version selection

2014-11-10 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:02:35PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: I'd recommend doing all this but with such correction that the new result will not break API/ABI backwards compatibility to OpenSSL 1.0.x so it can be applied in some future 1.0.x branch. Basically things should not be removed but

RE: TLS/SSL methods and protocol version selection

2014-11-10 Thread Salz, Rich
Does this look like a good idea? Yes, very. I think the min/max versions should be two explicit parameters, where '0' means the highest(lowest) supported by the library. -- Principal Security Engineer, Akamai Technologies IM: rs...@jabber.me Twitter: RichSalz

[openssl.org #2464]

2014-11-10 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo via RT
Improved version of the patch... -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Software Engineer KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company Tel. UK +44-1738-450410, Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions From

Re: [Fwd: Inconsistency in ARM support]

2014-11-10 Thread Andy Polyakov
Attached is promised patch that reworks interworking logic. As mentioned earlier idea is to use __ARM_ARCH__=5 || !defined(__thumb__). Rationale is that load to pc does interworking since ARMv5, but without __thumb__ it does what we need even on ARMv4. OK, this appears to build and run

Re: [Fwd: Inconsistency in ARM support]

2014-11-10 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 8 November 2014 17:56, Andy Polyakov ap...@openssl.org wrote: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -I.. -I../.. -I../modes -I../asn1 -I../evp -I../../include -DOPENSSL_THREADS -D_REENTRANT -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -D__ARM_MAX_ARCH__=8 -DTERMIO -O3 -Wall -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m

Re: [Fwd: Inconsistency in ARM support]

2014-11-10 Thread Andy Polyakov
Attached is promised patch that reworks interworking logic. As mentioned earlier idea is to use __ARM_ARCH__=5 || !defined(__thumb__). Rationale is that load to pc does interworking since ARMv5, but without __thumb__ it does what we need even on ARMv4. OK, this appears to build and run fine

[openssl.org #3595] Free of garbage pointer in ec_wNAF_mul (crypto/ec/ec_mult.c)

2014-11-10 Thread David Ramos via RT
Hello, Our UC-KLEE tool found a free of a garbage pointer in the latest OpenSSL (and LibreSSL) that would cause either a segfault or heap corruption depending on the pre-existing heap contents. The bug occurs in ec_wNAF_mul (crypto/ec/ec_mult.c). If the allocation of wNAF on line 448 succeeds

Re: [Fwd: Inconsistency in ARM support]

2014-11-10 Thread Andy Polyakov
Well, it probably should be noted that Thumb code with non-Thumb shared library on ARMv4 takes special compiler. At least stock gcc doesn't generate those magic epilogues with moveq pc,lr, but simply issues target CPU does not support interworking warning. And passing -march=armv4t simply

[PATCH] Advance to the next state variant when reusing messages

2014-11-10 Thread Piotr Sikora
(for some reason it was never received by rt@, so resending here) Advance to the next state variant when reusing messages. Previously, state variant was not advanced, which resulted in state being stuck in the st1 variant (usually _A). This broke certificate callback retry logic when accepting

[openssl.org #3596] [1.0.2] -checkhost and -verify_hostname options documentation errors

2014-11-10 Thread Hubert Kario via RT
Current git OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable branch (39679d858) has errors related to hostname-, IP- and email-verification options. openssl s_client -help lists following options: -checkhost host - check peer certificate matches host -checkemail email - check peer certificate matches email -checkip

[openssl.org #3597] [PATCH] Advance to the next state variant when reusing messages.

2014-11-10 Thread Piotr Sikora via RT
Advance to the next state variant when reusing messages. Previously, state variant was not advanced, which resulted in state being stuck in the st1 variant (usually _A). This broke certificate callback retry logic when accepting connections that were using SSLv2 ClientHello (hence reusing the

Re: [Fwd: Inconsistency in ARM support]

2014-11-10 Thread Ard Biesheuvel
On 10 November 2014 17:12, Andy Polyakov ap...@openssl.org wrote: Attached is promised patch that reworks interworking logic. As mentioned earlier idea is to use __ARM_ARCH__=5 || !defined(__thumb__). Rationale is that load to pc does interworking since ARMv5, but without __thumb__ it does

Re: [PATCH] Advance to the next state variant when reusing messages

2014-11-10 Thread Lutz Jaenicke
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, Piotr Sikora wrote: (for some reason it was never received by rt@, so resending here) Slipped through the moderation queue, sorry. It is in RT now. Best regards, Lutz -- Lutz Jaenicke jaeni...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project