Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove GnuTLS 3.5.5 from test dependencies #3236

Closed
goatgoose opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #4417
Closed

Remove GnuTLS 3.5.5 from test dependencies #3236

goatgoose opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #4417
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@goatgoose
Copy link
Contributor

Security issue notifications

If you discover a potential security issue in s2n we ask that you notify
AWS Security via our vulnerability reporting page. Please do not create a public github issue.

Problem:

In #3207, GnuTLS 3.7.3 was added as a test dependency for the GnuTLS v2 integration tests. This version of GnuTLS, however, broke the v1 tests. So, both versions are being kept as dependencies temporarily. After all of v1 is removed from CI, GnuTLS 3.5.5 will no longer be needed.

Solution:

Remove GnuTLS 3.5.5 as a test dependency after the v2 integration tests replace the v1 tests.

Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:

What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?

  • RFC links: Links to relevant RFC(s)
  • Related Issues: Link any relevant issues
  • Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
  • Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
    • Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
    • Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.

Out of scope:

Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants