OpenSSL 4.1.0

(github.com)

101 points | by petecooper 2 hours ago

6 comments

  • hannob 2 hours ago
    I don't see "we fixed some of the the excessive performance regressions that we introduced in 3.0". Unfortunate...

    Context: https://cryptography.io/en/latest/statements/state-of-openss...

    • chemodax 8 minutes ago
      AWS-Lc looks very promising replacement for OpenSSL these days.
    • ahartmetz 42 minutes ago
      >We do not fully understand the motivations that led to the public APIs and internal complexity we’ve described here. We’ve done our best to reverse engineer them by asking “what would motivate someone to do this” and often we’ve found ourselves coming up short.

      Surely they thought of it but didn't say it out loud... to keep it exploitable, maybe?

    • spacesez-ai 30 minutes ago
      [flagged]
  • adzm 0 minutes ago
    I think this is the only software project I use that still requires me to have perl
  • haunter 2 hours ago
    > Dropped Windows-on-Itanium (VC-WIN64I) and Windows CE (VC-CE) targets from Configurations.

    What a throwback. afaik Windows Server 2008 R2 had Itanium updates until 2020 and paid support until this year. Pretty good run to say at least

    • 0c3ca83 2 minutes ago
      Glad they kept big endian x86_64, at least.

      https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/c69b5af10a754051274e...

    • nirui 1 hour ago
      I kinda wonder what if Microsoft (or any major software company) would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems, opposite of piling on new features. Will it result a much cleaner code, better architect, and stable product?

      The last Windows I daily use was Windows 7 Home (same era with Windows Server 2008). The newer ones don't really improved much featurely from my (user) point of view, and from what I've heard, it's getting more sloppyer every newer version.

      • zbentley 40 minutes ago
        > what if Microsoft would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems

        They wouldn't, even if they didn't care about shipping new features. The technical complexity inside Windows/Office/old core MS offerings arises only in small part from ordinary tech debt--that is, things fixable without changing observable behavior. The lion's share of that complexity is because of Microsoft's priority to avoid breaking compatibility (backwards, or with hardware/software combos that work) at all costs.

        That means that a refactor-only decade would achieve little unless that compatibility priority were changed.

      • egorfine 29 minutes ago
        This will NOT please the shareholders. And that's all that matters.
    • mrweasel 1 hour ago
      Make you wonder what they've been testing this on. Even NetBSD doesn't have a recent release for Itanium. Crazy that you can run NetBSD 11.0 on HPPA, but not Itanium, given that HPPA is in some sense the pre-cursor to Itanium.
      • mixdup 28 minutes ago
        Age is probably less relevant than current installed base/active users
      • mondainx 1 hour ago
        More than likely in "government"; they are always behind and keeping legacy stuff around. I found Windows 1.0 floppies in a drawer, back-in-the-day.
      • p_l 1 hour ago
        Honestly more HPPA gear to test against than Itanium
  • snvzz 1 hour ago
    Mandatory reminder libressl[0] exists.

    0. https://www.libressl.org/

    • sehw 54 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • Razengan 2 hours ago
    > Dropped Windows-on-Itanium

    A sad day. End of an era *salute*

    • ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1 hour ago
      seems like a versioning-induced death

      i think a project like this would slough old architecture like mad and let major versions tick, but they forge on...

      • literalAardvark 48 minutes ago
        MS ended paid extended support for Itanium, so it's kind of a dead target
  • amelius 1 hour ago
    Was it verified by AI?

    (Not a strange question given the recent PHP vulns found by AI.)