OpenSSL Beta 2, report of successful migration

Dr Paul Dale pauli at
Mon Aug 2 12:11:12 UTC 2021


The OpenSSL team has wondered how many people were trying out 3.0 during 
the beta period without any way of knowing for sure.  That you've had 
what seems like a fairly smooth transition is wonderful.


On 2/8/21 8:10 pm, Olivier Mascia via openssl-users wrote:
> Hello,
> 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,
> Olivier Mascia

More information about the openssl-users mailing list