• Images
• Videos
• Documents
• Books
• Articles

Related Image Collections Add Image

Profiles

1 Image

We don't have any YouTube videos related to OpenSSL yet.

You can add one yourself here.

We don't have any PDF documents related to OpenSSL yet.

You can add one yourself here.

We don't have any Books related to OpenSSL yet.

You can add one yourself here.

Archived Web Articles Add Article

Google unveils independent “fork” of OpenSSL called “BoringSSL”

Jun 20 2014

Project history

The OpenSSL project was founded in 1998 to provide a free set of encryption tools for the code used on the Internet. It is based on a fork of SSLeay by Eric Andrew Young and Tim Hudson, which unofficially ended development on December 17, 1998, when Young and Hudson both went to work for RSA Security. The initial founding members were Mark Cox, Ralf Engelschall, Stephen Henson, Ben Laurie, and Paul Sutton.¹

In 2018 OpenSSL version numbering skipped from 1.1.1 to 3.0.0, omitting 2 as a major version number to avoid a conflict with one of OpenSSL's modules. Version 3.0.0 was the first to use the Apache License.

As of May 2019,² the OpenSSL management committee consisted of seven people³ and there are seventeen developers⁴ with commit access (many of whom are also part of the OpenSSL management committee). There were only two full-time employees (fellows) and the remainder were volunteers.

By 2024, there were fourteen employees.

The project had a total income of US$5.5 million in 2024.⁵ Development of TLS 1.3 was sponsored by Akamai.⁶

Major version releases

Algorithms

OpenSSL supports a number of different cryptographic algorithms:

(Perfect forward secrecy is supported using elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman since version 1.0.⁵²)

FIPS 140 validation

FIPS 140 is a U.S. Federal program for the testing and certification of cryptographic modules. An early FIPS 140-1 certificate for OpenSSL's FOM 1.0 was revoked in July 2006 "when questions were raised about the validated module's interaction with outside software." The module was re-certified in February 2007 before giving way to FIPS 140-2.⁵³ OpenSSL 1.0.2 supported the use of the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module (FOM), which was built to deliver FIPS approved algorithms in a FIPS 140-2 validated environment.⁵⁴⁵⁵ OpenSSL controversially decided to categorize the 1.0.2 architecture as 'end of life' or 'EOL', effective December 31, 2019, despite objections that it was the only version of OpenSSL that was currently available with support for FIPS mode.⁵⁶ As a result of the EOL, many users were unable to properly deploy the FOM 2.0 and fell out of compliance because they did not secure extended support for the 1.0.2 architecture, although the FOM itself remained validated for eight months further.

The FIPS Object Module 2.0 remained FIPS 140-2 validated in several formats until September 1, 2020, when NIST deprecated the usage of FIPS 186-2 for Digital Signature Standard and designated all non-compliant modules as 'Historical'. This designation includes a caution to federal agencies that they should not include the module in any new procurements. All three of the OpenSSL validations were included in the deprecation – the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module (certificate #1747),⁵⁷ OpenSSL FIPS Object Module SE (certificate #2398),⁵⁸ and OpenSSL FIPS Object Module RE (certificate #2473).⁵⁹ Many 'private label' OpenSSL-based validations and clones created by consultants were also moved to the Historical List, although some FIPS validated modules with replacement compatibility avoided the deprecation, such as BoringCrypto from Google⁶⁰ and CryptoComply from SafeLogic.⁶¹

The OpenSSL Management Committee announced a change in the versioning scheme.

Due to this change, the major number of the next major version would have been doubled, since the OpenSSL FIPS module already occupied this number. Therefore, the decision was made to skip the OpenSSL 2.0 version number and continue with OpenSSL 3.0 .

OpenSSL 3.0 restored FIPS mode and underwent FIPS 140-2 testing, but with significant delays: The effort was first kicked off in 2016 with support from SafeLogic⁶²⁶³⁶⁴ and further support from Oracle in 2017,⁶⁵⁶⁶ but the process has been challenging.⁶⁷

On October 20, 2020, the OpenSSL FIPS Provider 3.0 was added to the CMVP Implementation Under Test List, which reflected an official engagement with a testing lab to proceed with a FIPS 140-2 validation. This resulted in a slew of certifications in the following months.⁶⁸

Licensing

OpenSSL was dual-licensed under the OpenSSL License and the SSLeay License, which means that the terms of either licenses can be used.⁶⁹ The OpenSSL License is Apache License 1.0 and SSLeay License bears some similarity to a 4-clause BSD License. As the OpenSSL License was Apache License 1.0, but not Apache License 2.0, it requires the phrase "this product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit" to appear in advertising material and any redistributions (Sections 3 and 6 of the OpenSSL License). Due to this restriction, the OpenSSL License and the Apache License 1.0 are incompatible with the GNU GPL.⁷⁰ Some GPL developers have added an OpenSSL exception to their licenses that specifically permits using OpenSSL with their system. GNU Wget and climm both use such exceptions.⁷¹⁷² Some packages (like Deluge) explicitly modify the GPL license by adding an extra section at the beginning of the license documenting the exception.⁷³ Other packages use the LGPL-licensed GnuTLS, BSD-licensed Botan, or MPL-licensed NSS, which perform the same task.

OpenSSL announced in August 2015 that it would require most contributors to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA), and that OpenSSL would eventually be relicensed under the terms of Apache License 2.0.⁷⁴ This process commenced in March 2017,⁷⁵ and was complete in 2018.⁷⁶

On 7 September 2021, OpenSSL 3.0.0 was released under the Apache License 2.0.⁷⁷

Notable vulnerabilities

Denial of service: ASN.1 parsing

OpenSSL 0.9.6k has a bug where certain ASN.1 sequences triggered a large number of recursions on Windows machines, discovered on November 4, 2003. Windows could not handle large recursions correctly, so OpenSSL would crash as a result. Being able to send arbitrary large numbers of ASN.1 sequences would cause OpenSSL to crash as a result.

OCSP stapling vulnerability

When creating a handshake, the client could send an incorrectly formatted ClientHello message, leading to OpenSSL parsing more than the end of the message. Assigned the identifier CVE-2011-0014 by the CVE project, this affected all OpenSSL versions 0.9.8h to 0.9.8q and OpenSSL 1.0.0 to 1.0.0c. Since the parsing could lead to a read on an incorrect memory address, it was possible for the attacker to cause a DoS. It was also possible that some applications expose the contents of parsed OCSP extensions, leading to an attacker being able to read the contents of memory that came after the ClientHello.⁷⁸

ASN.1 BIO vulnerability

When using Basic Input/Output (BIO)⁷⁹ or FILE based functions to read untrusted DER format data, OpenSSL is vulnerable. This vulnerability was discovered on April 19, 2012, and was assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2012-2110. While not directly affecting the SSL/TLS code of OpenSSL, any application that was using ASN.1 functions (particularly d2i_X509 and d2i_PKCS12) were also not affected.⁸⁰

SSL, TLS and DTLS plaintext recovery attack

In handling CBC cipher-suites in SSL, TLS, and DTLS, OpenSSL was found vulnerable to a timing attack during the MAC processing. Nadhem Alfardan and Kenny Paterson discovered the problem, and published their findings⁸¹ on February 5, 2013. The vulnerability was assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2013-0169.

Predictable private keys (Debian-specific)

OpenSSL's pseudo-random number generator acquires entropy using complex programming methods. To keep the Valgrind analysis tool from issuing associated warnings, a maintainer of the Debian distribution applied a patch to Debian's variant of the OpenSSL suite, which inadvertently broke its random number generator by limiting the overall number of private keys it could generate to 32,768.⁸²⁸³ The broken version was included in the Debian release of September 17, 2006 (version 0.9.8c-1), also compromising other Debian-based distributions, for example Ubuntu. Ready-to-use exploits are easily available.⁸⁴

The error was reported by Debian on May 13, 2008. On the Debian 4.0 distribution (etch), these problems were fixed in version 0.9.8c-4etch3, while fixes for the Debian 5.0 distribution (lenny) were provided in version 0.9.8g-9.⁸⁵

Heartbleed

Main article: Heartbleed

OpenSSL versions 1.0.1 through 1.0.1f have a severe memory handling bug in their implementation of the TLS Heartbeat Extension that could be used to reveal up to 64 KB of the application's memory with every heartbeat⁸⁶⁸⁷ (CVE-2014-0160). By reading the memory of the web server, attackers could access sensitive data, including the server's private key.⁸⁸ This could allow attackers to decode earlier eavesdropped communications if the encryption protocol used does not ensure perfect forward secrecy. Knowledge of the private key could also allow an attacker to mount a man-in-the-middle attack against any future communications. The vulnerability might also reveal unencrypted parts of other users' sensitive requests and responses, including session cookies and passwords, which might allow attackers to hijack the identity of another user of the service.⁸⁹

At its disclosure on April 7, 2014, around 17% or half a million of the Internet's secure web servers certified by trusted authorities were believed to have been vulnerable to the attack.⁹⁰ However, Heartbleed can affect both the server and client.

CCS injection vulnerability

The CCS Injection Vulnerability (CVE-2014-0224) is a security bypass vulnerability that results from a weakness in OpenSSL methods used for keying material.⁹¹

This vulnerability can be exploited through the use of a man-in-the-middle attack,⁹² where an attacker may be able to decrypt and modify traffic in transit. A remote unauthenticated attacker could exploit this vulnerability by using a specially crafted handshake to force the use of weak keying material. Successful exploitation could lead to a security bypass condition where an attacker could gain access to potentially sensitive information. The attack can only be performed between a vulnerable client and server.

OpenSSL clients are vulnerable in all versions of OpenSSL before the versions 0.9.8za, 1.0.0m and 1.0.1h. Servers are only known to be vulnerable in OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2-beta1. Users of OpenSSL servers earlier than 1.0.1 are advised to upgrade as a precaution.⁹³

ClientHello sigalgs DoS

This vulnerability (CVE-2015-0291) allows anyone to take a certificate, read its contents and modify it accurately to abuse the vulnerability causing a certificate to crash a client or server. If a client connects to an OpenSSL 1.0.2 server and renegotiates with an invalid signature algorithms extension, a null-pointer dereference occurs. This can cause a DoS attack against the server.

A Stanford Security researcher, David Ramos, had a private exploit and presented it to the OpenSSL team, which then patched the issue.

OpenSSL classified the bug as a high-severity issue, noting version 1.0.2 was found vulnerable.⁹⁴

Key recovery attack on Diffie–Hellman small subgroups

This vulnerability (CVE-2016-0701) allows, when some particular circumstances are met, to recover the OpenSSL server's private Diffie–Hellman key. An Adobe System Security researcher, Antonio Sanso, privately reported the vulnerability.

OpenSSL classified the bug as a high-severity issue, noting only version 1.0.2 was found vulnerable.⁹⁵

Forks

Agglomerated SSL

In 2009, after frustrations with the original OpenSSL API, Marco Peereboom, an OpenBSD developer at the time, forked the original API by creating Agglomerated SSL (assl),⁹⁶ which reuses OpenSSL API under the hood, but provides a much simpler external interface.⁹⁷ It has since been deprecated in light of the LibreSSL fork circa 2015.

LibreSSL

Main article: LibreSSL

In April 2014 in the wake of Heartbleed, members of the OpenBSD project forked OpenSSL starting with the 1.0.1g branch, to create a project named LibreSSL.⁹⁸ In the first week of pruning the OpenSSL's codebase, more than 90,000 lines of C code had been removed from the fork.⁹⁹

BoringSSL

In June 2014, Google announced its own fork of OpenSSL dubbed BoringSSL.¹⁰⁰ Google plans to co-operate with OpenSSL and LibreSSL developers.^101102103 Google has since developed a new library, Tink, based on BoringSSL.¹⁰⁴

AWS-LC

In September 2020, it was released as a general-purpose cryptographic library maintained by the Amazon Web Services Cryptography team to be used in the AWS cloud computing platform. It іs based on code from the OpenSSL and BoringSSL projects.¹⁰⁵

QuicTLS

It's a collaborative fork between Akamai and Microsoft, based on OpenSSL 3.3 release, and with some features and fixes cherry-picked from the current OpenSSL repo.¹⁰⁶

Criticisms

Backwards compatibility

Among developers communities, OpenSSL is often cited for introducing API compatibility breakage with each new major version,^107108109110 which requires software adaptations that tend to delay new version adoptions.¹¹¹ This, combined with the fact that previous releases are generally maintained for no more than two years after a new major one is released¹¹² tends to force some vendors to anticipate software migrations very early while still having little time left¹¹³ to update to a new release, sometimes at the risk of losing some compatibility with existing software¹¹⁴¹¹⁵ or risking regressions.¹¹⁶¹¹⁷

Delay between releases

While long-term support (LTS) releases are maintained for 5 years,¹¹⁸ accumulated delays in release time frames tend to force operating system vendors to stay on the last supported release longer, leaving less margin when the new version is available. For example, OpenSSL 3.0 was initially expected for Q4 2019¹¹⁹ and was finally issued 21 months later¹²⁰ without extending the expected end of support for previously supported version 1.1.1, and this despite the significant changes that required adaptations to existing software.

Significant performance regressions

The reduced support delay of version 1.1.1 mentioned above causes further concerns to users whose workloads are sensitive to performance. Some time after general availability of 3.0, some users started to report serious performance regressions affecting this version in multi-threaded environments, many citing the inefficient use of locks in frequent low-level operations, citing slowdowns from 80 to 400 times.^{121122123124125126127128} The OpenSSL team has created a meta-issue to try to centralize reports of such massive performance regressions.¹²⁹ About half of these reporters indicate the impossibility for them to upgrade to 3.0 from earlier versions, adding to the trouble caused by the limited support time left on previous version 1.1.1.

Consideration for users' requirements

While the QUIC transport layer was being worked on to support the third version of the HTTP protocol, it was proposed to use TLS to provide security,¹³⁰ and identified that some adaptations to TLS libraries would be needed. Such modifications were brought to BoringSSL¹³¹ which was the library being primarily used by QUIC developers by then, and later ported to other libraries.¹³² A port of this work was quickly proposed to OpenSSL.¹³³ While some discussion started the same day, it quickly stalled and was first blocked on license considerations,¹³⁴ then kept on hold once these concerns were cleared. Finally 10 months later the OpenSSL Management Committee announced on a blog post¹³⁵ that this patch set would not be adopted for 3.0 on the fear that the API would change over time. Finally more than one year after planned release of 3.0 which was still not coming, a team of volunteers from Akamai and Microsoft decided to fork the project as QuicTLS¹³⁶ and support these patches on top of the OpenSSL code in order to unblock QUIC development. This action was generally welcome by the community. Finally after OpenSSL 3.0 was finally released, the QUIC patch set was reconsidered and decided against,¹³⁷ causing tens to hundreds of reactions of disappointment among the community.¹³⁸ The pull request was closed, while users felt the need to publicly express their disappointment,¹³⁹ or beg operating system vendors to support the alternative QuicTLS fork,¹⁴⁰¹⁴¹ or seek for alternative solutions.¹⁴² Finally Rich Salz, co-founder of the QuicTLS fork, announced¹⁴³ his interest in seeing an Apache project forked from QuicTLS. As of 25 February 2023 there is still no QUIC-compatible long-term supported TLS library available by default in operating systems without requiring end-users to rebuild it themselves from sources.

See also

• Free and open-source software portal

• Comparison of TLS implementations
• Comparison of cryptography libraries
• List of free and open-source software packages
• POSSE project
• LibreSSL
• wolfSSL

Notes

External links

• Official website
• OpenSSL Manpages
• OpenSSL Programming Guide (archived)
• The OpenSSL License and the GPL by Mark McLoughlin
• "OpenSSL programming tutorial". August 16, 2018. Archived from the original on May 10, 2021.
• OpenSSL Community Wiki

References

1. Laurie, Ben (January 6, 1999). "Announce: OpenSSL (Take 2)". ssl-users (Mailing list). Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved October 29, 2018. https://marc.info/?l=ssl-users&m=91566086807308&w=2 ↩

2. "New Committers". OpenSSL Software Foundation. May 20, 2019. Archived from the original on October 14, 2024. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2019-05-20-committers/ ↩

3. "OpenSSL Management Committee". OpenSSL Software Foundation. Archived from the original on July 22, 2018. Retrieved November 3, 2019. https://www.openssl.org/community/omc.html ↩

4. "OpenSSL Committers". OpenSSL Software Foundation. Archived from the original on July 22, 2018. Retrieved November 3, 2019. https://www.openssl.org/community/committers.html ↩

5. "OpenSSL Annual Report 2024" (PDF). https://openssl-corporation.org/about/Annual-Report-2024.pdf ↩

6. Marquess, Steve (January 19, 2017). "Akamai sponsors TLS 1.3". openssl-announce (Mailing list). Archived from the original on February 1, 2017. Retrieved November 9, 2018. https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2017-January/000090.html ↩

7. "OpenSSL – Changelog". OpenSSL Software Foundation. Archived from the original on September 13, 2016. Retrieved September 26, 2016. https://www.openssl.org/news/changelog.html ↩

8. "OpenSSL Releases". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md ↩

9. "OpenSSL Library – Release Strategy". OpenSSL Software Foundation. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved August 1, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/policies/releasestrat/ ↩

10. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

11. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

12. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

13. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

14. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

15. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

16. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

17. "OpenSSL 0.9.x series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-09x ↩

18. "OpenSSL 1.0.0 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-100 ↩

19. "OpenSSL 1.0.1 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-101 ↩

20. R. Seggelmann; M. Tuexen; M. Williams (February 2012). Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC6520. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 6520. Proposed Standard. Updated by RFC 8447. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6520 ↩

21. E. Rescorla (January 2010). Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC5705. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 5705. Proposed Standard. Updated by RFC 8446 and 8447. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5705 ↩

22. D. McGrew; E. Rescorla (May 2010). Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC5764. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 5764. Proposed Standard. Updated by RFC 7983 and 9443. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5764 ↩

23. "OpenSSL 1.0.2 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-102 ↩

24. "OpenSSL 1.1.0 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-110 ↩

25. J-P. Aumasson (October 2015). M-J. Saarinen (ed.). The BLAKE2 Cryptographic Hash and Message Authentication Code (MAC). Independent Submission. doi:10.17487/RFC7693. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 7693. Informational. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7693 ↩

26. Y. Nir; A. Langley (June 2018). ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols. Internet Research Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC8439. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 8439. Informational. Obsoletes RFC 7539. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8439 ↩

27. A. Langley; M. Hamburg; S. Turner (January 2016). Elliptic Curves for Security. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC7748. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 7748. Informational. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7748 ↩

28. Caswell, Matt (September 11, 2018). "OpenSSL 1.1.1 Is Released". OpenSSL Blog. OpenSSL Foundation. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2018-09-11-release111/ ↩

29. "OpenSSL 1.1.1 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-111 ↩

30. Caswell, Matt (February 8, 2018). "Using TLS1.3 With OpenSSL". OpenSSL Blog. OpenSSL Foundation. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2018-02-08-tlsv1.3/ ↩

31. Caswell, Matt (September 11, 2018). "OpenSSL 1.1.1 Is Released". OpenSSL Blog. OpenSSL Foundation. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2018-09-11-release111/ ↩

32. A. Langley; M. Hamburg; S. Turner (January 2016). Elliptic Curves for Security. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC7748. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 7748. Informational. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7748 ↩

33. B. Kaliski; A. Rusch; J. Johnsson; A. Rusch (November 2016). K. Moriarty (ed.). PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC8017. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 8017. Informational. Obsoletes RFC 3447. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8017 ↩

34. "OpenSSL 3.0 Has Been Released!". OpenSSL Blog. September 7, 2021. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2021-09-06-openssl3.final/ ↩

35. "OpenSSL 3.0 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved December 6, 2022. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-30 ↩

36. The major version 2.0.0 was skipped due to its previous use in the OpenSSL FIPS module.[30] ↩

37. Matt Caswell (November 28, 2018). "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch". OpenSSL Blog. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2018-09-25-version/ ↩

38. "OpenSSL 3.1 Final Release". OpenSSL Blog. March 7, 2023. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2023-03-07-openssl3.1release/ ↩

39. "OpenSSL 3.1 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved March 15, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-31 ↩

40. "OpenSSL 3.2.0 Final Release". OpenSSL Blog. November 23, 2023. Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2023-11-06-openssl32/ ↩

41. "OpenSSL 3.2 series notes". GitHub. Retrieved November 24, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/NEWS.md#openssl-32 ↩

42. A. Ghedini; V. Vasiliev (December 2020). TLS Certificate Compression. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC8879. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 8879. Proposed Standard. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8879 ↩

43. T. Pornin (August 2013). Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). Independent Submission. doi:10.17487/RFC6979. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 6979. Informational. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6979 ↩

44. J. Gilmore; S. Weiler; T. Kivinen (June 2014). P. Wouters; H. Tschofenig (eds.). Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC7250. ISSN 2070-1721. RFC 7250. Proposed Standard. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7250 ↩

45. "OpenSSL 3.3 Final Release". OpenSSL Blog. April 10, 2024. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2024-04-10-3.3-final-release/ ↩

46. "OpenSSL 3.4 Final Release". OpenSSL Blog. October 22, 2024. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved November 22, 2024. https://openssl-corporation.org/post/2024-10-22-openssl-3-4-final/ ↩

47. "OpenSSL 3.5 Final Release". OpenSSL Blog. April 8, 2025. Archived from the original on April 25, 2025. Retrieved April 28, 2025. https://openssl-library.org/post/2025-04-08-openssl-35-final-release/ ↩

48. "GOST engine OpenSSL 1.0.0 README". cvs.openssl.org. Archived from the original on April 15, 2013. https://archive.today/20130415122812/http://cvs.openssl.org/fileview?f=openssl/engines/ccgost/README.gost ↩

49. "GOST engine OpenSSL 1.0.0 README". cvs.openssl.org. Archived from the original on April 15, 2013. https://archive.today/20130415122812/http://cvs.openssl.org/fileview?f=openssl/engines/ccgost/README.gost ↩

50. "OpenSSL source code, directory crypto/whrlpool". GitHub. Archived from the original on February 17, 2019. Retrieved August 29, 2017. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/tree/master/crypto/whrlpool ↩

51. "GOST engine OpenSSL 1.0.0 README". cvs.openssl.org. Archived from the original on April 15, 2013. https://archive.today/20130415122812/http://cvs.openssl.org/fileview?f=openssl/engines/ccgost/README.gost ↩

52. "Protecting data for the long term with forward secrecy". Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved November 5, 2012. http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/protecting-data-for-long-term-with.html ↩

53. "NIST recertifies open source encryption module". gcn.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20071010000622/http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/43142-1.html ↩

54. "FIPS-140". openssl.org. Retrieved November 12, 2019. https://www.openssl.org/docs/fips.html ↩

55. "OpenSSL User Guide for the OpenSSL FIPS Object Module v2.0" (PDF). openssl.org. March 14, 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 9, 2020. Retrieved November 12, 2019. https://www.openssl.org/docs/fips/UserGuide-2.0.pdf ↩

56. "Update on 3.0 Development, FIPS and 1.0.2 EOL". OpenSSL Blog. November 7, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2019-11-07-3.0-update/ ↩

57. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program Certificate #1747". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/certificate/1747 ↩

58. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program Certificate #2398". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. Archived from the original on October 26, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2020. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/certificate/2398 ↩

59. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program Certificate #2473". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/certificate/2473 ↩

60. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program search results". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules/search?SearchMode=Advanced&Vendor=google&ModuleName=boringcrypto&Standard=140-2&CertificateStatus=Active&ValidationYear=0 ↩

61. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program search results". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules/search?SearchMode=Advanced&Vendor=safelogic&ModuleName=cryptocomply&Standard=140-2&CertificateStatus=Active&ValidationYear=0 ↩

62. Schneider, Troy K. (July 20, 2016). "Getting government approval of a more secure OpenSSL". GCN: Technology, Tools, and Tactics for Public Sector IT. Archived from the original on May 9, 2021. Retrieved October 29, 2020. https://gcn.com/articles/2016/07/20/openssl-fips ↩

63. Waterman, Shaun (July 21, 2016). "SafeLogic saves the day for feds' use of OpenSSL". FedScoop. https://www.fedscoop.com/openssl-us-government-safelogic-fips-140-2-2016/ ↩

64. Rashid, Fahmida Y. (July 26, 2016). "Reworked OpenSSL on track for government validation". InfoWorld. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3098868/reworked-openssl-on-track-for-government-validation.html ↩

65. Wells, Joyce (August 3, 2017). "Oracle, SafeLogic and OpenSSL Join Forces to Update FIPS Module". Database Trends and Applications. https://www.dbta.com/Editorial/News-Flashes/Oracle-SafeLogic-and-OpenSSL-Join-Forces-to-Update-FIPS-Module-119707.aspx ↩

66. Kerner, Sean Michael (August 4, 2017). "Oracle Joins SafeLogic to Develop FIPS Module for OpenSSL Security". eWeek. https://www.eweek.com/security/oracle-joins-safelogic-to-develop-fips-module-for-openssl-security ↩

67. "OpenSSL 3.0 Alpha7 Release". OpenSSL Blog. October 20, 2020. Archived from the original on October 14, 2024. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2020-10-20-openssl3.0alpha7/ ↩

68. "Cryptographic Module Validation Program: OpenSSL". Computer Security Resource Center. October 11, 2016. Archived from the original on April 14, 2021. Retrieved September 24, 2021. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules/search?SearchMode=Basic&ModuleName=OpenSSL&CertificateStatus=Active&ValidationYear=0 ↩

69. "OpenSSL: Source, License". openssl.org. Archived from the original on January 18, 2019. Retrieved February 5, 2015. https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html ↩

70. "Licenses – Free Software Foundation". fsf.org. Archived from the original on January 24, 2008. Retrieved January 4, 2008. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses ↩

71. "WGET 1.10.2 for Windows (win32)". users.ugent.be. Archived from the original on January 2, 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20080102164139/http://users.ugent.be/~bpuype/wget/ ↩

72. "Releases of source and binaries". climm.org. Archived from the original on February 12, 2011. Retrieved November 30, 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20110212024627/http://www.climm.org/download.shtml.en ↩

73. "Deluge LICENSE file". deluge-torrent.org. Archived from the original on December 3, 2013. Retrieved January 24, 2013. http://git.deluge-torrent.org/deluge/plain/LICENSE ↩

74. Salz, Rich (August 1, 2015). "License Agreements and Changes Are Coming". openssl.org. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2015-08-01-cla/ ↩

75. "OpenSSL Re-licensing to Apache License v. 2.0 To Encourage Broader Use with Other FOSS Projects and Products". March 23, 2017. Archived from the original on July 18, 2017. Retrieved August 6, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20170718040958/https://www.coreinfrastructure.org/news/announcements/2017/03/openssl-re-licensing-apache-license-v-20-encourage-broader-use-other-foss ↩

76. Lee, Victoria; Radcliffe, Mark; Stevenson, Chris (5 February 2019). "Top 10 FOSS legal developments of 2018". Opensource.com, Red Hat. Archived from the original on 5 February 2019. Retrieved 28 September 2019. The OpenSSL project announced that it had completed its shift from the OpenSSL/SSLeay license to the Apache Software License version 2 (ASLv2). https://web.archive.org/web/20190205110130/https://opensource.com/article/19/2/top-foss-legal-developments ↩

77. "OpenSSL 3.0 License Change". September 22, 2021. Archived from the original on January 17, 2025. Retrieved September 24, 2021. https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/OpenSSL_3.0#License_Change ↩

78. "OpenSSL Updates Fix Critical Security Vulnerabilities". August 9, 2014. Archived from the original on August 26, 2014. Retrieved August 25, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140826120554/https://blogs.comodo.com/it-security/openssl-updates-fix-critical-security-vulnerabilities/ ↩

79. "OpenSSL ASN.1 asn1_d2i_read_bio() Heap Overflow Vulnerability". Cisco. Archived from the original on June 10, 2016. Retrieved May 9, 2016. https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/viewAlert.x?alertId=25706 ↩

80. "ASN1 BIO vulnerability". OpenSSL. Archived from the original on March 2, 2015. Retrieved February 5, 2015. https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20120419.txt ↩

81. "On the Security of RC4 in TLS". Royal Holloway Department of Information Security. Archived from the original on March 15, 2013. Retrieved April 29, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20130315084623/http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/ ↩

82. "research!rsc: Lessons from the Debian/OpenSSL Fiasco". research.swtch.com. Retrieved August 12, 2015. http://research.swtch.com/openssl ↩

83. "SSLkeys". Debian Wiki. Retrieved June 19, 2015. https://wiki.debian.org/SSLkeys ↩

84. "Debian OpenSSL – Predictable PRNG Bruteforce SSH Exploit Python". Exploits Database. June 1, 2008. Archived from the original on February 6, 2025. Retrieved August 12, 2015. https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/5720/ ↩

85. "DSA-1571-1 openssl – predictable random number generator". Debian Project. May 13, 2008. Archived from the original on March 9, 2011. Retrieved August 5, 2012. http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 ↩

86. OpenSSL.org (April 7, 2014). "OpenSSL Security Advisory [07 Apr 2014]". Archived from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved April 9, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140408195036/https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140407.txt ↩

87. OpenSSL (April 7, 2014). "TLS heartbeat read overrun (CVE-2014-0160)". Archived from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140408195036/https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140407.txt ↩

88. Codenomicon Ltd (April 8, 2014). "Heartbleed Bug". Archived from the original on April 7, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014. http://heartbleed.com/ ↩

89. "Why Heartbleed is dangerous? Exploiting CVE-2014-0160". IPSec.pl. 2014. Archived from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140408224556/http://ipsec.pl/ssl-tls/2014/why-heartbleed-dangerous-exploiting-cve-2014-0160.html ↩

90. Mutton, Paul (April 8, 2014). "Half a million widely trusted websites vulnerable to Heartbleed bug". Netcraft Ltd. Archived from the original on November 19, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/04/08/half-a-million-widely-trusted-websites-vulnerable-to-heartbleed-bug.html ↩

91. "OpenSSL continues to bleed out more flaws – more critical vulnerabilities found". Cyberoam Threat Research Labs. 2014. Archived from the original on June 19, 2014. Retrieved June 13, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20140619034859/http://www.cyberoam.com/blog/openssl-continues-to-bleed-out-more-flaws-more-critical-vulnerabilities-found/ ↩

92. "CVE-2014-0224". CVE. 2014. Archived from the original on August 1, 2014. Retrieved June 13, 2014. https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-0224 ↩

93. "OpenSSL Security Advisory". OpenSSL. June 5, 2014. Archived from the original on April 30, 2024. Retrieved June 13, 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20240430142011/https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv_20140605.txt ↩

94. "OpenSSL Patches Severe Denial-of-Service Vulnerability". Brandon Stosh. March 20, 2015. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 20, 2015. http://freedomhacker.net/openssl-patches-severe-denial-of-service-vulnerability-3818/ ↩

95. Goodlin, Dan (January 28, 2016). "High-severity bug in OpenSSL allows attackers to decrypt HTTPS traffic". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on November 20, 2016. Retrieved June 14, 2017. https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/high-severity-bug-in-openssl-allows-attackers-to-decrypt-https-traffic/ ↩

96. "Agglomerated SSL". GitHub. September 7, 2010. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved December 9, 2024. https://github.com/conformal/assl ↩

97. "security/assl: assl-1.5.0p0v0 – hide awful SSL API in a sane interface". OpenBSD ports. May 22, 2014. Archived from the original on February 10, 2015. Retrieved February 10, 2015. http://ports.su/security/assl ↩

98. "OpenBSD has started a massive strip-down and cleanup of OpenSSL". OpenBSD journal. April 15, 2014. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014. Retrieved April 21, 2014. http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140415093252&mode=expanded ↩

99. "OpenBSD forks, prunes, fixes OpenSSL". ZDNet. April 21, 2014. Archived from the original on April 21, 2014. Retrieved April 21, 2014. https://www.zdnet.com/article/openbsd-forks-prunes-fixes-openssl/ ↩

100. "BoringSSL". Git at Google. Archived from the original on February 17, 2018. Retrieved December 28, 2015. https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/ ↩

101. "Google unveils independent 'fork' of OpenSSL called 'BoringSSL'". Ars Technica. June 21, 2014. Archived from the original on June 23, 2014. Retrieved June 14, 2017. https://arstechnica.com/security/2014/06/google-unveils-independent-fork-of-openssl-called-boringssl/ ↩

102. "BoringSSL". Adam Langley's Weblog. June 20, 2014. Archived from the original on June 1, 2018. Retrieved September 22, 2015. https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/06/20/boringssl.html ↩

103. "BoringSSL wants to kill the excitement that led to Heartbleed". Sophos. June 24, 2014. Archived from the original on February 14, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20180214073437/https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/06/24/boringssl-wants-kill-the-excitement-that-led-to-heartbleed/ ↩

104. Buchanan, Bill (August 30, 2018). "Goodbye OpenSSL, and Hello To Google Tink". Medium. Retrieved April 4, 2019. https://medium.com/asecuritysite-when-bob-met-alice/goodbye-openssl-and-hello-to-google-tink-583163cfd76c ↩

105. "AWS-LC is a general-purpose cryptographic library". GitHub. September 4, 2020. Retrieved December 8, 2024. https://github.com/aws/aws-lc ↩

106. "The official repository for the QuicTLS project". GitHub. May 7, 2025. Retrieved May 7, 2025. https://github.com/quictls/quictls ↩

107. "OpenSSL 3 breaks webpack build · Issue #22305 · brave/brave-browser". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/22305 ↩

108. "openssl version 3.0 in arch? / Newbie Corner / Arch Linux Forums". bbs.archlinux.org. Archived from the original on May 16, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=277577 ↩

109. "OpenSSL 3.0 transition plans". Ubuntu Community Hub. April 6, 2022. Archived from the original on December 25, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/openssl-3-0-transition-plans/24453 ↩

110. "OpenSSL 3.0 Compatibility · Issue #597 · nginx/unit". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/nginx/unit/issues/597 ↩

111. "Our future with OpenSSL". Discussions on Python.org. November 28, 2022. Archived from the original on February 25, 2023. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://discuss.python.org/t/our-future-with-openssl/21486 ↩

112. "OpenSSL 3.0 Has Been Released!". OpenSSL Blog. September 7, 2021. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2021-09-06-openssl3.final/ ↩

113. "The experience of bringing OpenSSL 3.0 into Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora". www.redhat.com. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/experience-bringing-openssl-30-rhel-and-fedora ↩

114. "Compile against OpenSSL 3.X". groups.google.com. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://groups.google.com/g/help-cfengine/c/45i4ROevUVw ↩

115. "ESET Management Agent (RHEL 9.x, OpenSSL 3.0.x)". ESET Security Forum. June 6, 2022. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://forum.eset.com/topic/32613-eset-management-agent-rhel-9x-openssl-30x/ ↩

116. "Issue 46313: SSLObject does not raise SSLEOFError on OpenSSL 3 - Python tracker". bugs.python.org. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://bugs.python.org/issue46313 ↩

117. "RHEL 9 : openssl (RHSA-2022:6224)". www.tenable.com. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/164507 ↩

118. "OpenSSL Library – Release Strategy". OpenSSL Software Foundation. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved August 1, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/policies/releasestrat/ ↩

119. "Update on 3.0 Development, FIPS and 1.0.2 EOL". OpenSSL Blog. November 7, 2019. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2019-11-07-3.0-update/ ↩

120. "OpenSSL 3.0 Has Been Released!". OpenSSL Blog. September 7, 2021. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2021-09-06-openssl3.final/ ↩

121. "Massive performance degradation in OpenSsl 3.0 if used in a heavy multi threaded server application · Issue #17064 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/17064 ↩

122. "Performance issue with Openssl 3.0 in multi threaded application when using d2i_x509 · Issue #17950 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/17950 ↩

123. "Severe efficiency degradation of credential loading in comparison to 1.1.1 · Issue #18814 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/18814 ↩

124. "3.0 performance degraded due to locking · Issue #20286 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/20286 ↩

125. "High cpu usage for outbound ssl requests after upgrading from v16.15.0 to v18.1.0 · Issue #43128 · nodejs/node". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/43128 ↩

126. "Massive performance degradation in OpenSsl 3.0 FIPS provider · Issue #18472 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/18472 ↩

127. "Performance measurements · Issue #16791 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/16791 ↩

128. "PEM/DER decoding of PKCS8 RSA private keys are 80 times slower in 3.0 · Issue #15199 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/15199 ↩

129. "3.0 Performance problems · Issue #17627 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/17627 ↩

130. Thomson, Martin; Turner, Sean (January 14, 2017). "Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC". Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved November 27, 2023 – via IETF. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-tls/01/ ↩

131. "221 - boringssl - A fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs - Monorail". bugs.chromium.org. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/boringssl/issues/detail?id=221 ↩

132. "Support QUIC TLS API (#826) · Issues · gnutls / GnuTLS · GitLab". GitLab. September 4, 2019. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/-/issues/826 ↩

133. "WIP: master QUIC support by tmshort · Pull Request #8797 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on January 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8797 ↩

134. "WIP: master QUIC support by tmshort · Pull Request #8797 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on January 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8797 ↩

135. "QUIC and OpenSSL". OpenSSL Blog. February 17, 2020. Retrieved October 11, 2024. https://openssl-library.org/post/2020-02-13-quic-and-openssl/ ↩

136. "quictls announce on twitter". https://twitter.com/richsalz/status/1367349918671773697 ↩

137. "OMC Release Requirements". www.mail-archive.com. Archived from the original on January 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02585.html ↩

138. "WIP: master QUIC support by tmshort · Pull Request #8797 · openssl/openssl". GitHub. Archived from the original on January 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8797 ↩

139. "The QUIC API OpenSSL will not provide | daniel.haxx.se". October 25, 2021. Archived from the original on January 21, 2025. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/10/25/the-quic-api-openssl-will-not-provide/ ↩

140. Tarreau, Willy (October 27, 2021). "[Pkg-openssl-devel] Any intent to maintain quictls ?". Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-openssl-devel/2021-October/007668.html ↩

141. "Bug#1011391: openssl: please support quictls patchset". groups.google.com. Archived from the original on December 8, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://groups.google.com/g/linux.debian.bugs.dist/c/CAh0KLP5Euo?pli=1 ↩

142. "HTTP/3 support · Issue #680 · haproxy/haproxy". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/680 ↩

143. "HTTP/3 support · Issue #680 · haproxy/haproxy". GitHub. Archived from the original on December 7, 2024. Retrieved February 25, 2023. https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/680 ↩