portable

Try libressl (https://github.com/libressl/portable)

What about libreSSL, the other fork? https://www.libressl.org/ https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-open...

Yes. https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/595#iss...

As others have mentioned, TLS 1.3 is not yet supported. But a little bit of context for that decision as of early last year. https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/228#iss... We will support 1.3 once the standard is firmed up and finalized (i.e. ceases to be coopted by vendors making changes to allow for people to continue to run moribund middle boxes that can't recognize a new protocol on the wire) Since there is effectively nothing wrong with TLS 1.2 with a sanely chosen cipher suite today, we believe a clean careful implementation is more beneficial than early adoption. So there's no rush on the part of the developers to support it. Skimming the commits on that git mirror we can see 1.3 related commits started hitting late last year.

If you're on Linux and compiling libtls from source[0], that repo will build an implementation of it at [1]. If your distro supplies a libbsd, you could also link to it instead of compiling a strlcpy for yourself. [0] https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable [1] libtls-standalone/compat/strlcpy.c

I too would definitely be interested if there's any sort of milestone planned for X25519. There are a couple of open enhancement requests on it in both openbsd and portable [1,2] dating to before ratification of RFC 7748 (or Chrome 50), but no assignees yet. I also don't see any discussion on the libressl public mailing list archives at marc.info, though I'm not sure if that's complete. It seems like it may become an ever bigger breaking issue for a lot of folks as support becomes more widespread following standardization, inclusion in OpenSSL 1.1.0, and increasing major browser/OS support. 1. https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/114 2. https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd/issues/58

They released updates today that fix cve-2015-1788. https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/blob/master/Ch...

Well, with updates to LibreSSL (2.1.7, 2.2.0) getting released today it looks like this has already been addressed. I can't find a decent link at the moment but according to an email I received a bit ago from owner-announce at openbsd.org 1788 is fixed in the above mentioned releases. Fixes for the following issues are integrated into LibreSSL 2.1.7 and LibreSSL 2.2.0: - CVE-2015-1788 - Malformed ECParameters causes infinite loop - CVE-2015-1789 - Exploitable out-of-bounds read in X509_cmp_time - CVE-2015-1792 - CMS verify infinite loop with unknown hash function (this code is not enabled by default) Edit - The updates included are mentioned here: https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/blob/master/Ch...

I don't know too much about it but it's a LibreSSL compatibility feature to stay compatible with OpenSSL. Basically it's a mechanism for client software to fall back to reduced encryption when better options fail. Considering their stance on security I can see why the OpenBSD guys look at this as a bad idea. But on the other hand if they want people to adopt LibreSSL some "compatibility over maximum security" choices have to be made. More here... https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/36

OpenSSL development far exceeds LibreSSL, I believe they should fix OpenSSL instead of trying to fork it. OpenSSL: http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=shortlog vs LibreSSL: https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/commits/master Seems LibreSSL is a mainly a one-man band?

Looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/commit/32d9eee... https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd/commit/c5188a3a... And there's a new tarball out: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=140548206911600&w=2