Handle serial numbers permissively in OCSP Since libpki's serial number parser is itself sometimes permissive, it would be prudent for us to ensure all accepted serial numbers are representable in OCSP and CRL. This isn't critical because the real factor is whether the caller treats revocation as hardfail or not. This also fixes a bug where OCSPParseCertificate forgot to pass parse_options anywhere. In reality, this is all just just downstream of libpki handling serial numbers badly. https://crbug.com/533048005 tracks fixing this. Fixed: 518241439 Change-Id: Id73102bfc56d8c27ec08b1f76c411bdee3ab0551 Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/98647 Presubmit-BoringSSL-Verified: boringssl-scoped@luci-project-accounts.iam.gserviceaccount.com <boringssl-scoped@luci-project-accounts.iam.gserviceaccount.com> Reviewed-by: Matt Mueller <mattm@google.com> Commit-Queue: Matt Mueller <mattm@google.com> Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
BoringSSL is a fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs.
Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.
Programs ship their own copies of BoringSSL when they use it and we update everything as needed when deciding to make API changes. This allows us to mostly avoid compromises in the name of compatibility. It works for us, but it may not work for you.
BoringSSL arose because Google used OpenSSL for many years in various ways and, over time, built up a large number of patches that were maintained while tracking upstream OpenSSL. As Google's product portfolio became more complex, more copies of OpenSSL sprung up and the effort involved in maintaining all these patches in multiple places was growing steadily.
Currently BoringSSL is the SSL library in Chrome/Chromium, Android (but it's not part of the NDK) and a number of other apps/programs.
Project links:
To file a security issue, use the Chromium process and mention in the report this is for BoringSSL. You can ignore the parts of the process that are specific to Chromium/Chrome.
There are other files in this directory which might be helpful: