OpenSSL 4.0.0
107 points
2 hours ago
| 8 comments
| github.com
| HN
capitol_
2 hours ago
[-]
Finally encrypted client hello support \o/
reply
bombcar
1 hour ago
[-]
Is this something that we can enable "today" or is it going to take 12 years for browsers and servers to support?
reply
arcfour
1 hour ago
[-]
CloudFlare has supported it since 2023: https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-encrypted-client-hell... Firefox has had it enabled by default since version 119: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/faq-encrypted-client-he... so you can use it today.
reply
bombcar
1 hour ago
[-]
https://tls-ech.dev indicates that Safari doesn't support it, but Chrome does.
reply
altairprime
34 minutes ago
[-]
That’s likely due to iOS/macOS not supporting it in production-default-enabled yet; there’s an experimental opt-in flag at the OS level, but Safari apparently hasn’t (yet) added a dev feature switch for it.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/sec_proto...

Presumably anyone besides Safari can opt-in to that testing today, but I wouldn’t ship it worldwide and expect nice outcomes until (I suspect) after this fall’s 27 releases. Maybe someone could PR the WebKit team to add that feature flag in the meantime?

reply
kro
1 hour ago
[-]
Nginx mainline 1.29.x supports it. So once you get that and also the openssl version on your system, good to go. Likely too late for ubuntu 26.04, maybe in debian 14 next year, or of course rolling release distros / containers.

But, in a personal/single website server, ech does not really add privacy, adversaries can still observe the IP metadata and compare what's hosted there. The real benefits are on huge cloud hosting platforms.

reply
ocdtrekkie
55 minutes ago
[-]
Just be aware any reasonable network will block this.
reply
quantummagic
23 minutes ago
[-]
Why is it "reasonable" to block it?
reply
vman81
9 minutes ago
[-]
Well, I may want to have a say in what websites the employees at work access in their browsers. For example.
reply
altairprime
44 seconds ago
[-]
[delayed]
reply
hypeatei
18 minutes ago
[-]
Procrastinators. FTFY.

Eventually these blocks won't be viable when big sites only support ECH. It's a stopgap solution that's delaying the inevitable death of SNI filtering.

reply
caycep
1 hour ago
[-]
How is OpenSSl these days? I vaguely remember the big ruckus a while back, was it Heartbleed? where everyone to their horror realized it was maybe 1 or 2 people trying to maintain OpenSSL, and the OpenBSD people then throwing manpower at it to clear up a lot of old outstanding bugs. It seems like it is on firmer/more organized footing these days?
reply
tptacek
38 minutes ago
[-]
The security side of OpenSSL improved significantly since Heartbleed, which was a galvanizing moment for the maintenance practices of the project. It doesn't hurt that OpenSSL is now one of the most actively researched software security targets on the Internet.

The software quality side of OpenSSL paradoxically probably regressed since Heartbleed: there's a rough consensus that the design of OpenSSL 3.0 was a major step backwards, not least for performance, and more than one large project (but most notably pyca/cryptography) is actively considering moving away from OpenSSL entirely as a result. Again: while security concerns might be an ancillary issue in those potential migrations, the core issue is just that OpenSSL sucks to work with now.

reply
kccqzy
1 hour ago
[-]
It’s still terrible. There was a brief period immediately after Heartbleed that it was rapidly improving but the entire OpenSSL 3 was a huge disappointment to anyone who cared about performance and complexity and developer experience (ergonomics). Core operations in OpenSSL 3 are still much much slower than in OpenSSL 1.1.1.

The HAProxy people wrote a very good blog post on the state of SSL stacks: https://www.haproxy.com/blog/state-of-ssl-stacks And the Python cryptography people wrote an even more damning indictment: https://cryptography.io/en/latest/statements/state-of-openss...

Here are some juicy quotes:

> With OpenSSL 3.0, an important goal was apparently to make the library much more dynamic, with a lot of previously constant elements (e.g., algorithm identifiers, etc.) becoming dynamic and having to be looked up in a list instead of being fixed at compile-time. Since the new design allows anyone to update that list at runtime, locks were placed everywhere when accessing the list to ensure consistency.

> After everything imaginable was done, the performance of OpenSSL 3.x remains highly inferior to that of OpenSSL 1.1.1. The ratio is hard to predict, as it depends heavily on the workload, but losses from 10% to 99% were reported.

> OpenSSL 3 started the process of substantially changing its APIs — it introduced OSSL_PARAM and has been using those for all new API surfaces (including those for post-quantum cryptographic algorithms). In short, OSSL_PARAM works by passing arrays of key-value pairs to functions, instead of normal argument passing. This reduces performance, reduces compile-time verification, increases verbosity, and makes code less readable.

reply
gavinray
12 minutes ago
[-]

  > In short, OSSL_PARAM works by passing arrays of key-value pairs to functions, instead of normal argument passing. 
Ah yes, the ole' " fn(args: Map<String, Any>)" approach. Highly auditable, and Very Safe.
reply
yjftsjthsd-h
2 hours ago
[-]
As a complete non-expert:

On the one hand, looks like decent cleanup. (IIRC, engines in particular will not be missed).

On the other hand, breaking compatibility is always a tradeoff, and I still remember 3.x being... not universally loved.

reply
moralestapia
1 hour ago
[-]
That's why it is version 4.
reply
bensyverson
45 minutes ago
[-]
I just updated to 3.5x to get pq support. Anything that might tempt me to upgrade to 4.0?
reply
altairprime
41 minutes ago
[-]
The top feature, “ Support for Encrypted Client Hello (ECH, RFC 9849)”, is of prime importance to those operating Internet-accessible servers, or clients; hopefully your Postgres server is not one such!
reply
rwmj
1 hour ago
[-]
Compared to OpenSSL 3 this transition has been very smooth. Only dropping of "Engines" was a problem at all, and in Fedora most of those dependencies have been changed.
reply
georgthegreat
1 hour ago
[-]
https://www.haproxy.com/blog/state-of-ssl-stacks

According to this one should not be using v3 at all..

reply
danudey
48 minutes ago
[-]
Nice that OpenSSL finally relented and provided an API for developers to use to implement QUIC support - last year, apparently.

For those not familiar: until OpenSSL 3.4.1, if you wanted use OpenSSL and wanted to implement HTTP/3, which uses QUIC as the underlying protocol, you had to use their entire QUIC stack; you couldn't have a QUIC implementation and only use OpenSSL for the encryption parts.

QUIC, for those not familiar, is basically "what if we re-implemented TCP's functionality on top of UDP, but we could throw out all the old legacy crap". Complicated but interesting, except that if OpenSSL's implementation didn't do what you want or didn't do it well, you either had to put up with it or go use some other SSL library somewhere else. That meant that if you were using e.g. curl built against OpenSSL then curl also inherently had to use OpenSSL's QUIC implementation even if there were better ones available.

Daniel Stenberg from Curl wrote a great blog post about how bad and dumb that was if anyone is interested. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2026/01/17/more-http-3-focus-one...

reply
ge96
1 hour ago
[-]
Just in time for the suckerpinch video
reply
jmclnx
1 hour ago
[-]
I wonder how hard it is to move from 3.x to 4.0.0 ?

From what I remember hearing, the move from 2 to 3 was hard.

reply
georgthegreat
1 hour ago
[-]
That's because there was no version 2...
reply
some_furry
57 minutes ago
[-]
Yes there was!

But, thousand yard stare it was the version for the FIPS patches to 1.0.2.

reply