On 2018年01月19日 10:43, Steve Holden wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2018 07:34, "Christian Heimes" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 2018年01月16日 21:17, Christian Heimes wrote: > > FYI, master on Travis CI now builds and uses OpenSSL 1.1.0g [1]. I > have > > created a daily cronjob to populate Travis' cache with OpenSSL > builds. > > Until the cache is filled, Linux CI will take an extra 5 minute. > > I have messed up my initial research. :( When I was checking > LibreSSL > and OpenSSL for features, I draw a wrong conclusion. LibreSSL is > *not* > OpenSSL 1.0.2 compatible. It only implements some of the required > features from 1.0.2 (e.g. X509_check_hostname) but not > X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host. > > X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host() is required to perform hostname > verification during the TLS handshake. Without the function, I'm > unable > to fix Python's hostname matching code [1]. LibreSSL upstream knows > about the issue since 2016 [2]. I have opened another bug report > [3]. > > We have two options until LibreSSL has addressed the issue: > > 1) Make the SSL module more secure, simpler and standard conform > 2) Support LibreSSL > > > [...] > > > > We have *very* few people qualified to maintain the ssl module, so > given the new landscape I think we should focus on keeping our core > OpenSSL support solid and not worry about LibreSSL. If LibreSSL > wants to be supported as well then – like any other 2nd tier > platform – they need to find someone to do the work. And if people > are worried about supporting more diversity in SSL implementations, > then PEP 543 is probably the thing to focus on. > > Given the hard limit on resources it seems only sensible to focus on > the "industry standard" library. I'm rather disappointed that LibreSSL > isn't a choice, but given the lack of compatibility that's hardly > Python's problem.
Thanks! I'd prefer to support LibreSSL, too. Paul Kehrer from PyCA summed up the issue with LibreSSL nicely: > It was marketed as an API compatible drop-in replacement and it is failing in that capacity. Additionally, it is missing features needed to improve the security and ease the maintenance burden of CPython’s dev team. Since I haven given up on LibreSSL, I spent some time and implemented some autoconf magic in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/5242. It checks for the presence of libssl and X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host() function family: ... checking whether compiling and linking against OpenSSL works... yes checking for X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host in libssl... yes ... The ssl module will regain compatibility with LibreSSL as soon as a new release provides the necessary functions. Christian _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com