OpenSSL Beta 2, report of successful migration
om at integral.be
Mon Aug 2 10:10:11 UTC 2021
Just wanted to report that our private code update to move on from OpenSSL 1.1.1 to 3.0 Beta 2 is successful.
It revolved around replacing some code still using RSA_ apis directly by proper EVP_PKEY_ apis, and some other minor details. Nothing too fancy after some effort understanding the new recipes.
On the side of SSL communications, we have found *nothing* to update in our code, and though deep testing is still ongoing for some days, there are apparently no side-effects. Of course our use-case exercises only a very partial set of the whole toolkit. But as people generally only report problems, I thought like reporting success, for a change.
I though have a question, regarding Windows binaries.
(We build our own for x86/amd64 using the documented procedure, the compilers installed are Visual Studio 2019, with latest updates).
I take it (might be wrong, because the build scripts are complex to me) that the naming convention of binaries for OpenSSL 3 on Windows platform is like this:
libcrypto-3.dll (and libssl-3.dll) for the 32 bits (release) builds
libcrypto-3-x64.dll (and libssl-3-x64.dll) for the 64 bits (release) builds
Is this naming convention intended to be stable over the 3.x life? Or would it change for things like libcrypto-3.1.dll (or the like) with releases like 3.1.x?
Best Regards, Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
More information about the openssl-users