That would make RHEL6 users, at least, sad:
$ rpm -q openssl
openssl-1.0.1e-57.el6.x86_64
openssl-1.0.1e-57.el6.i686
I feel your pain since we use a lot of CentOS 6 at work, but you don't
have much longer to use it, right? I think support for it only goes
until next year, unless you pay for extended lifecycle support. Maybe
we can come out with a newer release of nmh before then, but it's not
like it's tomorrow.
But you motivated me enough to look ... I see that 1.0.1 DOES actually
include the necessary function (SSL_set_tlsext_host_name()). It looks
like that was added for 1.0.0.
I am not exactly confident that replacing that with 1.0.2 or later would
be feasible --- didn't they break ABI to some extent in that revision?
Ummm .... 'maybe'. There is no ABI compatibility guarantee, that is
for sure. It looks like what bit us was that going from 1.0.2 to 1.1.0
a library function (SSL_library_init) was turned into a macro. But
there is nothing stopping you from installing a newer OpenSSL into
/usr/local and linking nmh against that; it wouldn't conflict with
anything installed.
I feel that since SSL_set_tlsext_host_name() has been around for
approximately forever I'm fine with just adding it and assuming that
everyone is at 1.0.0 or newer (but I just know someone will show up
still using 0.9.8). But it does beg a larger question ... should we
still force a minimum version of 1.0.2?
The reason I ask is our current code has an #ifdef for the function
X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host() which controls the verification of the
name of the server certificate against the passed-in hostname, which is
pretty important; without that no hostname verification of the server
certificate is done. I don't know if we think this is important enough
that we require nmh have this functionality or not (you can always turn
it off with a command line switch).
--Ken
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers