Skip to content
  1. Nov 05, 2017
  2. Nov 02, 2017
  3. Oct 31, 2017
  4. Oct 25, 2017
  5. Oct 07, 2017
  6. Aug 30, 2017
  7. Aug 27, 2017
  8. Aug 15, 2017
  9. Aug 07, 2017
  10. Jul 25, 2017
  11. Jul 03, 2017
  12. Jun 29, 2017
  13. Jun 28, 2017
  14. Jun 27, 2017
    • Richard Levitte's avatar
      util/mkerr.pl: allow module names prefixed with OSSL_ or OPENSSL_ · 4b2799c1
      Richard Levitte authored
      
      
      To make sure that our symbols don't clash with other libraries, we
      claim the namespaces OSSL and OPENSSL.  Because C doesn't provide
      namespaces, the only solution is to have them as prefixes on symbols,
      thus we allow OSSL_ and OPENSSL_ as prefixes.
      
      These namespace prefixes are optional for the foreseeable future, and
      will only be used for new modules as needed on a case by case basis,
      until further notice.
      
      For extra safety, there's an added requirement that module names -
      apart from the namespace prefix - be at least 2 characters long.
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3781)
      4b2799c1
  15. Jun 19, 2017
  16. Jun 16, 2017
  17. Jun 08, 2017
  18. Jun 02, 2017
  19. May 31, 2017
  20. May 25, 2017
  21. May 17, 2017
    • Matt Caswell's avatar
      Don't allow fragmented alerts · bd990e25
      Matt Caswell authored
      
      
      An alert message is 2 bytes long. In theory it is permissible in SSLv3 -
      TLSv1.2 to fragment such alerts across multiple records (some of which
      could be empty). In practice it make no sense to send an empty alert
      record, or to fragment one. TLSv1.3 prohibts this altogether and other
      libraries (BoringSSL, NSS) do not support this at all. Supporting it adds
      significant complexity to the record layer, and its removal is unlikely
      to cause inter-operability issues.
      
      The DTLS code for this never worked anyway and it is not supported at a
      protocol level for DTLS. Similarly fragmented DTLS handshake records only
      work at a protocol level where at least the handshake message header
      exists within the record. DTLS code existed for trying to handle fragmented
      handshake records smaller than this size. This code didn't work either so
      has also been removed.
      
      Reviewed-by: default avatarRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
      (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3476)
      bd990e25
  22. Apr 27, 2017
  23. Apr 20, 2017
  24. Apr 10, 2017
  25. Apr 07, 2017
  26. Mar 30, 2017
  27. Mar 29, 2017
  28. Mar 28, 2017
  29. Mar 15, 2017
  30. Mar 14, 2017
  31. Mar 13, 2017
  32. Mar 02, 2017
  33. Feb 28, 2017
  34. Feb 24, 2017
  35. Feb 16, 2017
  36. Feb 01, 2017
  37. Jan 26, 2017