Comment Comment by ludbb Interestingly, looks like LibreSSL avoided the BN_mod_exp bug.OpenSSL history for crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-mont5.pl can be seen at: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/d73cc256c8e256c32...LibreSSL is using an old version of that same file found at http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/src/.... LibreSSL is using a version (possibly with patches on top of it) that is at least before https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cf6d55961cfaa00eb1..., which introduced the bug reported.BoringSSL patched it here: https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+/e701f16bd69b6...So, why LibreSSL went with a 2+ year old version of that file? parent ludbb 11 years ago
OpenSSL history for crypto/bn/asm/x86_64-mont5.pl can be seen at: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commits/d73cc256c8e256c32...
LibreSSL is using an old version of that same file found at http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/src/.... LibreSSL is using a version (possibly with patches on top of it) that is at least before https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/cf6d55961cfaa00eb1..., which introduced the bug reported.
BoringSSL patched it here: https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/+/e701f16bd69b6...
So, why LibreSSL went with a 2+ year old version of that file?