Poly1305 implementations are characterized by several parameters:
Coming back after a month and two weeks, it’s time to resume with the next engine lesson, this time building an engine implementing a digest.
It doesn’t matter much what digest algorithm we choose. Being lazy, I’ve chosen one with a well defined reference implementation, MD5 (reference implementation is found in RFC 1321)
In this lesson, we’re going to explore minimalism, in this case in the form of the most minimal engine possible (without obfuscating it).
The least boilerplate code for an engine looks like this:
#include <openssl/engine.h>
IMPLEMENT_DYNAMIC_BIND_FN(bind)
IMPLEMENT_DYNAMIC_CHECK_FN()
This example isn’t complete, it will not compile. However, it contains the absolute minimum required for those module to even be recognised as an OpenSSL engine.
For the longest time, it seems that people have wanted to have their diverse engines bundled with the OpenSSL source, as if there was no other way to build it or distribute it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Also, having the engine for some hardware bundled with the OpenSSL source presents a maintainance problem, and the better solution is for those who have an engine to maintain theḿ themselves.
We’ve just added a new severity level called “critical severity” to our security policy. When we first introduced the policy, over a year ago, we just had three levels, “Low”, “Moderate”, and “High”. So why did we add “Critical” and why are we not using someone else’s standard definitions?
After introducing the new policy we started giving everyone a headsup when we were due to release OpenSSL updates that included security fixes. The headsup doesn’t contain any details of the issues being fixed apart from the maximum severity level and a date a few days in the future.
Some of you may have noticed that the upcoming 1.1 release doesn’t include any FIPS support. That omission is not by choice; it was forced on us by circumstances and will hopefully not be permanent.
The v2.0 OpenSSL FIPS module is compatible with the 1.0.x releases, in particular the 1.0.2 “LTS” release that will be supported through 2019. It has proven very popular, used both directly by hundreds of software vendors and indirectly as a model for copycat “private label” validations.
Over the last 10 years, OpenSSL has published advisories on over 100 vulnerabilities. Many more were likely silently fixed in the early days, but in the past year our goal has been to establish a clear public record.
In September 2014, the team adopted a security policy that defines how we handle vulnerability reports. One year later, I’m very happy to conclude that our policy is enforced, and working well.
Our policy divides vulnerabilities into three categories, and defines actions for each category: we use the severity ranking to balance the need to get the fix out fast with the burden release upgrades put on our consumers.
We just went live with a new website. The design is based on the style included with Octopress; the new logo and some other important CSS tweaks were contributed by Tony Arcieri. The style is also mobile-friendly, so you can take us with you wherever you go. :) We still need a better “favicon.”
The text still needs more work. As someone on the team pointed out, “a worldwide community of volunteers that use the Internet to communicate, plan, and develop [OpenSSL]” … really?
The OpenSSL license is rather unique and idiosyncratic. It reflects views from when its predecessor, SSLeay, started twenty years ago. As a further complication, the original authors were hired by RSA in 1998, and the code forked into two versions: OpenSSL and RSA BSAFE SSL-C. (See Wikipedia for discussion.) I don’t want get into any specific details, and I certainly don’t know them all.
Things have evolved since then, and open source is an important part of the landscape – the Internet could not exist without it. There are good reasons why Microsoft is a founding member of the Core Infrastructure Initiative (CII).
Our plan is to update the license to the Apache License version 2.0. We are in consultation with various corporate partners, the CII, and the legal experts at the Software Freedom Law Center. In other words, we have a great deal of expertise and interest at our fingertips.
The OpenSSL source doesn’t look the same as it did a year ago. Matt posted about the big code reformatting. In this post I want review some of the other changes – these rarely affect features, but are more than involved than “just” whitespace.