[Migration guide]: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/tree/master/doc/man7/migration_guide.pod
-### Changes between 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 [xx XXX xxxx]
+### Changes between 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 [xx XXX xxxx]
+
+ * none yet
+
+### Changes between 3.0.4 and 3.0.5 [5 Jul 2022]
+
+ * The OpenSSL 3.0.4 release introduced a serious bug in the RSA
+ implementation for X86_64 CPUs supporting the AVX512IFMA instructions.
+ This issue makes the RSA implementation with 2048 bit private keys
+ incorrect on such machines and memory corruption will happen during
+ the computation. As a consequence of the memory corruption an attacker
+ may be able to trigger a remote code execution on the machine performing
+ the computation.
+
+ SSL/TLS servers or other servers using 2048 bit RSA private keys running
+ on machines supporting AVX512IFMA instructions of the X86_64 architecture
+ are affected by this issue.
+ ([CVE-2022-2274])
+
+ *Xi Ruoyao*
+
+ * AES OCB mode for 32-bit x86 platforms using the AES-NI assembly optimised
+ implementation would not encrypt the entirety of the data under some
+ circumstances. This could reveal sixteen bytes of data that was
+ preexisting in the memory that wasn't written. In the special case of
+ "in place" encryption, sixteen bytes of the plaintext would be revealed.
+
+ Since OpenSSL does not support OCB based cipher suites for TLS and DTLS,
+ they are both unaffected.
+ ([CVE-2022-2097])
+
+ *Alex Chernyakhovsky, David Benjamin, Alejandro Sedeño*
+
+### Changes between 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 [21 Jun 2022]
+
+ * In addition to the c_rehash shell command injection identified in
+ CVE-2022-1292, further bugs where the c_rehash script does not
+ properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection have been
+ fixed.
+
+ When the CVE-2022-1292 was fixed it was not discovered that there
+ are other places in the script where the file names of certificates
+ being hashed were possibly passed to a command executed through the shell.
+
+ This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where
+ it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker
+ could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script.
+
+ Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced
+ by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool.
+ (CVE-2022-2068)
+
+ *Daniel Fiala, Tomáš Mráz*
+
+ * Case insensitive string comparison no longer uses locales. It has instead
+ been directly implemented.
+
+ *Paul Dale*
+
+### Changes between 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 [3 May 2022]
+
+ * Case insensitive string comparison is reimplemented via new locale-agnostic
+ comparison functions OPENSSL_str[n]casecmp always using the POSIX locale for
+ comparison. The previous implementation had problems when the Turkish locale
+ was used.
+
+ *Dmitry Belyavskiy*
+
+ * Fixed a bug in the c_rehash script which was not properly sanitising shell
+ metacharacters to prevent command injection. This script is distributed by
+ some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On
+ such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the
+ privileges of the script.
+
+ Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced
+ by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool.
+ (CVE-2022-1292)
+
+ *Tomáš Mráz*
+
+ * Fixed a bug in the function `OCSP_basic_verify` that verifies the signer
+ certificate on an OCSP response. The bug caused the function in the case
+ where the (non-default) flag OCSP_NOCHECKS is used to return a postivie
+ response (meaning a successful verification) even in the case where the
+ response signing certificate fails to verify.
+
+ It is anticipated that most users of `OCSP_basic_verify` will not use the
+ OCSP_NOCHECKS flag. In this case the `OCSP_basic_verify` function will return
+ a negative value (indicating a fatal error) in the case of a certificate
+ verification failure. The normal expected return value in this case would be
+ 0.
+
+ This issue also impacts the command line OpenSSL "ocsp" application. When
+ verifying an ocsp response with the "-no_cert_checks" option the command line
+ application will report that the verification is successful even though it
+ has in fact failed. In this case the incorrect successful response will also
+ be accompanied by error messages showing the failure and contradicting the
+ apparently successful result.
+ ([CVE-2022-1343])
+
+ *Matt Caswell*
+
+ * Fixed a bug where the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite incorrectly used the
+ AAD data as the MAC key. This made the MAC key trivially predictable.
+
+ An attacker could exploit this issue by performing a man-in-the-middle attack
+ to modify data being sent from one endpoint to an OpenSSL 3.0 recipient such
+ that the modified data would still pass the MAC integrity check.
+
+ Note that data sent from an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to a non-OpenSSL 3.0
+ endpoint will always be rejected by the recipient and the connection will
+ fail at that point. Many application protocols require data to be sent from
+ the client to the server first. Therefore, in such a case, only an OpenSSL
+ 3.0 server would be impacted when talking to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 client.
+
+ If both endpoints are OpenSSL 3.0 then the attacker could modify data being
+ sent in both directions. In this case both clients and servers could be
+ affected, regardless of the application protocol.
+
+ Note that in the absence of an attacker this bug means that an OpenSSL 3.0
+ endpoint communicating with a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will fail to complete
+ the handshake when using this ciphersuite.
+
+ The confidentiality of data is not impacted by this issue, i.e. an attacker
+ cannot decrypt data that has been encrypted using this ciphersuite - they can
+ only modify it.
+
+ In order for this attack to work both endpoints must legitimately negotiate
+ the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite. This ciphersuite is not compiled by default in
+ OpenSSL 3.0, and is not available within the default provider or the default
+ ciphersuite list. This ciphersuite will never be used if TLSv1.3 has been
+ negotiated. In order for an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to use this ciphersuite the
+ following must have occurred:
+
+ 1) OpenSSL must have been compiled with the (non-default) compile time option
+ enable-weak-ssl-ciphers
+
+ 2) OpenSSL must have had the legacy provider explicitly loaded (either
+ through application code or via configuration)
+
+ 3) The ciphersuite must have been explicitly added to the ciphersuite list
+
+ 4) The libssl security level must have been set to 0 (default is 1)
+
+ 5) A version of SSL/TLS below TLSv1.3 must have been negotiated
+
+ 6) Both endpoints must negotiate the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite in preference to any
+ others that both endpoints have in common
+ (CVE-2022-1434)
+
+ *Matt Caswell*
+
+ * Fix a bug in the OPENSSL_LH_flush() function that breaks reuse of the memory
+ occuppied by the removed hash table entries.
+
+ This function is used when decoding certificates or keys. If a long lived
+ process periodically decodes certificates or keys its memory usage will
+ expand without bounds and the process might be terminated by the operating
+ system causing a denial of service. Also traversing the empty hash table
+ entries will take increasingly more time.
+
+ Typically such long lived processes might be TLS clients or TLS servers
+ configured to accept client certificate authentication.
+ (CVE-2022-1473)
+
+ *Hugo Landau, Aliaksei Levin*
+
+ * The functions `OPENSSL_LH_stats` and `OPENSSL_LH_stats_bio` now only report
+ the `num_items`, `num_nodes` and `num_alloc_nodes` statistics. All other
+ statistics are no longer supported. For compatibility, these statistics are
+ still listed in the output but are now always reported as zero.
+
+ *Hugo Landau*
+
+### Changes between 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 [15 Mar 2022]
* Fixed a bug in the BN_mod_sqrt() function that can cause it to loop forever
for non-prime moduli.
<!-- Links -->
+[CVE-2022-2274]: https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html#CVE-2022-2274
+[CVE-2022-2097]: https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html#CVE-2022-2274
[CVE-2020-1971]: https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html#CVE-2020-1971
[CVE-2020-1967]: https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html#CVE-2020-1967
[CVE-2019-1563]: https://www.openssl.org/news/vulnerabilities.html#CVE-2019-1563