OpenSSL clients would tolerate temporary RSA keys in non-export
ciphersuites. It also had an option SSL_OP_EPHEMERAL_RSA which
enabled this server side. Remove both options as they are a
protocol violation.
Thanks to Karthikeyan Bhargavan for reporting this issue.
(CVE-2015-0204)
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
(cherry picked from commit 4b4c1fcc88aec8c9e001b0a0077d3cd4de1ed0e6)
Conflicts:
CHANGES
doc/ssl/SSL_CTX_set_options.pod
The description of when the server creates a DH key is
confusing. This cleans it up.
(rsalz: also removed trailing whitespace.)
Reviewed-by: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>
Document that the certificate passed to SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert()
should not be freed by the application.
PR#3409
(cherry picked from commit 0535c2d67ca2d684087ef90be35d5fb207aab227)
Add restrictions section present in other branches.
Conflicts:
doc/ssl/SSL_CTX_add_extra_chain_cert.pod
(cherry picked from commit 86cac6d3b25342ff17a2b6564f7592fd7c6829e8)
Newer pod2man considers =item [1-9] part of a numbered list, while =item
0 starts an unnumbered list. Add a zero effect formatting mark to override
this.
doc/apps/smime.pod around line 315: Expected text after =item, not a
number
...
PR#3146
podlators 2.5.0 has switched to dying on POD syntax errors. This means
that a bunch of long-standing erroneous POD in the openssl documentation
now leads to fatal errors from pod2man, halting installation.
Unfortunately POD constraints mean that you have to sort numeric lists
in ascending order if they start with 1: you cannot do 1, 0, 2 even if
you want 1 to appear first. I've reshuffled such (alas, I wish there
were a better way but I don't know of one).
(cherry picked from commit 5cc270774258149235f69e1789b3370f57b0e27b)
directly by SSL/TLS SHA2 certificates are becoming more common and
applications that only call SSL_library_init() and not
OpenSSL_add_all_alrgorithms() will fail when verifying certificates.
Update docs.
initial connection to unpatched servers. There are no additional security
concerns in doing this as clients don't see renegotiation during an
attack anyway.
