

LibreSSL 2.1.5 released - fcambus
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=142655686417434

======
busterb
The LibreSSL version scheme corresponds to OpenBSD version numbers:

2.0.x -> OpenBSD 5.6, 2.1.x -> OpenBSD 5.7, 2.2.x -> OpenBSD 5.8,

Development slowed approaching the end of 2.1.x as the OpenBSD tree went in
release mode lockdown. It is interesting to see the development coordination
that stops and restarts the tree activity.

Things in the pipeline for 2.2.x include AIX, Cygwin, Visual Studio support,
and wider support for optimizations (currently only ELF/OS X x64 is
supported). In general, expect libtls to expand in features and improve
usability, more code to be pruned and simplified.

There were not many SSL patches for OpenBSD 5.6, and there were not any
LibreSSL 2.0.x releases after 2.1.x began. However, we are looking at possibly
releasing further 2.1.x updates if there is interest. They would correspond to
OpenBSD 5.7 errata.

~~~
kymywho
If the LibreSSL corresponds to OpenBSD version numbers then it should be
numbered 2.5.6 => 2.5.7 => 2.5.8 etc.

~~~
busterb
We wanted to also push out releases faster than OpenBSD's 6 month cycle. Maybe
we should have started at 5.6.0. I dunno, hindsight is 20/20.

------
fcambus
From the release announcement :

This or earlier LibreSSL releases may also address issues that are to be
revealed by The OpenSSL Project Team on the 19th of March, 2015.

~~~
0x0
That sounds a bit passive-aggressive, no?

~~~
chris_wot
Passive-aggressive from whom? OpenSSL who don't tell LibreSSL about security
flaws, or LibreSSL who need to wait for OpenSSL to do a release before they
can find out about security vulnerabilities?

~~~
fafner
Isn't that largely because the LibreSSL team refused the invite to the
exclusive OpenSSL security list? At least that was the case the last time the
LibreSSL devs complained about not receiving any vuln info in advance...

~~~
masklinn
> Isn't that largely because the LibreSSL team refused the invite to the
> exclusive OpenSSL security list?

Would you have a source for that? And for their reasoning behind it? Was "last
time" poodle or something else?

edit: in the sister thread[0] rlpb suggests the point of contention is that
OpenSSL embargoes but Theo/OpenBSD (and thus libressl) does not take part in
embargoes (and other issues including Theo being Theo), linking to
[http://lwn.net/Articles/601958/](http://lwn.net/Articles/601958/) as
supporting evidence, which looks to cover just about all grounds.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217022)

~~~
rlpb
Story, with sources, at:
[http://lwn.net/Articles/601958/](http://lwn.net/Articles/601958/)

They were asked to join the distros list, and they declined.

~~~
masklinn
Yep, found it just a few minutes ago and added it as an edit to the original
comment. Thanks a lot.

------
Ono-Sendai
Nice to see some work being done on the Windows port!

