Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 06:04:08PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:59:34PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > > Today's update is that we still have 6 open PRs for 1.1.1. 5 of these > > are the same as yesterday. The 1 that was marked as "ready" yesterday > > has now been merged

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues: Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other beta release? Kurt ___ op

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Matt Caswell
On 06/09/18 17:32, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: >> Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues: > > Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that > applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other > beta release? I'm n

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Tim Hudson
We need to get this release out and available - there are a lot of people waiting on the "production"release - and who won't go forward on a beta (simple fact of life there). I don't see the outstanding items as release blockers - and they will be wrapped up in time. Having the release date as a

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Matt Caswell wrote: > > I'm not keen on that. What do others think? No objections to issuing a release. We're unlikely to have to change the API/ABI or feature set based on further beta feedback. Any late bugs can be fixed in 1.1.1a, and unless they trigger CVE

[openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Matt Caswell
We currently have 8 1.1.1 PRs that are open. 3 of which are in the "ready" state. There are 2 which are alternative implementations of the same thing - so there are really on 4 issues currently being addressed: #7145 SipHash: add separate setter for the hash size Owner: Richard Awaiting review (C

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Tim Hudson
All PRs except #7145 now reviewed and marked ready. Tim On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Matt Caswell wrote: > We currently have 8 1.1.1 PRs that are open. 3 of which are in the > "ready" state. There are 2 which are alternative implementations of the > same thing - so there are really on 4 issu

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Paul Dale
PR for 7133 submitted.     Pauli -- Oracle Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption Phone +61 7 3031 7217 Oracle Australia   From: Tim Hudson [mailto:t...@cryptsoft.com] Sent: Friday, 7 September 2018 8:51 AM To: openssl-project@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-pro

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Richard Levitte
I think this one should be part of the lot as well: #7144 ASN.1 DER: Make INT32 / INT64 types read badly encoded LONG zeroes For example, *all* two-prime RSA keys from pre-1.1.1 become unreadable in 1.1.1, because pre-1.1.1 encodes the version indicator (zero) as 02 00 (zero length INTEGER, which

Re: [openssl-project] Release Criteria Update

2018-09-06 Thread Richard Levitte
In message <20180907.025152.1131079938025695690.levi...@openssl.org> on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 02:51:52 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte said: > For example, *all* two-prime RSA keys from pre-1.1.1 become unreadable That was a bit of an over-statement... but it seems that there are things in the wild t