- Jan 01, 2017
-
-
Dr. Stephen Henson authored
Reviewed-by:Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
-
- Dec 30, 2016
-
-
Matt Caswell authored
We need a new API for TLSv1.3 sig algs Reviewed-by:
Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2160)
-
Matt Caswell authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Matt Caswell authored
This macro has a typo in it which makes it unusable. This issue was already fixed in 1.0.2 in commit 75fdee04 , but the same fix was not applied to other branches. Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 29, 2016
-
-
Richard Levitte authored
These tests depend on there being at least one protocol version below TLSv1.3 enabled. Reviewed-by:
Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2144)
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Matt Caswell authored
The CT tests in test_sslmessages require EC to be available, therefore we must skip these if no-ec Reviewed-by:
Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2153)
-
Matt Caswell authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Matt Caswell authored
Previously we were omitting the extension information from ext_defs if the association no- option was defined. This doesn't work because the indexes into the table are no longer valid. Reviewed-by:
-
Matt Caswell authored
The previous commit fixed a bug where the EC point formats extensions did not appear in the ServerHello. This should have been caught by 70-test_sslmessages but that test never tries an EC ciphersuite. This updates the test to do that. Reviewed-by:
-
Matt Caswell authored
This should be sent in the ServerHello if a EC based ciphersuite is negotiated. The relevant flag to do this was missed off in the recent extensions refactor. Fixes GitHub Issue #2133 Reviewed-by:
-
Markus Triska authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 25, 2016
-
-
Andy Polyakov authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 22, 2016
-
-
Todd Short authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 21, 2016
-
-
Richard Levitte authored
We should move it back to the BORINGTEST build when we are approaching interoperability. Reviewed-by:
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org> Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 20, 2016
-
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
For now, checking that the size is non-zero will suffice. Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 19, 2016
-
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Andy Polyakov authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 18, 2016
-
-
Kurt Roeckx authored
Reviewed-by: -
Kurt Roeckx authored
Found by oss-fuzz Reviewed-by: -
Finn Hakansson authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 16, 2016
-
-
Richard Levitte authored
In some cases, both client and server end of the test can end up in SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ and never get out of it, making the test spin. Detect it and give up instead of waiting endlessly. Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
When built with --strict-warnings and the Linux kernel headers don't match the kernel version, the preprocessor warnings in engines/afalg/e_afalg.c cause compilation errors. Use the macro PEDANTIC to avoid those warnings in that case. Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Richard Levitte authored
Reviewed-by:
-
Kurt Roeckx authored
Also send a SNI extension in the client so the fuzzer can react to it. Reviewed-by: -
Kurt Roeckx authored
We use those parameters for calculating the coverage. Reviewed-by: -
Kurt Roeckx authored
This make sure that the coverage is the same for the fuzzers and this coverage target Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 15, 2016
-
-
Kurt Roeckx authored
Calling it with lenght 0 and NULL as source is undefined behaviour. Reviewed-by: -
Andy Polyakov authored
chacha/asm/chacha-x86_64.pl: refine nasm version detection logic. Reviewed-by: -
Andy Polyakov authored
Reviewed-by: -
Andy Polyakov authored
Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 14, 2016
-
-
Rich Salz authored
More importantly, port CRL test from boringSSL crypto/x509/x509_test.cc Reviewed-by:
-
Dr. Stephen Henson authored
Add options to check the function and reason code matches expected values. Reviewed-by:
-
- Dec 13, 2016
-
-
Rich Salz authored
Reviewed-by:
-
