Basic info

Topics

Updated: 2.7.6 and 2.6.22 release
We're doing a 2.7.6 and 2.6.22 release today with some security fixes.
There are also some security fixes backported to 2.5 but that branch does not have official releases anymore (out of support).
New: publish also on codeberg
Suggestion was made by cron2 to also publish openvpn2 on codeberg. OpenVPN3 Linux is already there at this time.
It would not replace github but just serve as another place to publish the code.

test latency and MTU in openvpn
A new feature is proposed for adding to master; ability to do latency and MTU tests in the OpenVPN protocol.
Idea is to allow to do a 'best server selection' type of logic, in case there are multiple servers available to connect to.
RFC PR is at https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn-rfc/pull/30 and an early initial implementation is available from lev.
community meetup 2026
Coordination is currently taking place here: https://community.openvpn.net/Meetups/2026-Paderborn
The date is around 17 and 18 October, location in Paderborn, Germany. ordex has volunteered to update and polish the page, fill in some further details.
2.7 security audit
The security audit was completed for 2.7.0 and results are available internally.
We are working to publish this in an official blog post. ordex and novaflash are driving this in OpenVPN Inc. internally.

Amount of open changes in the queue Some discussion about the number of open patches (e.g. about 120 open changes in Gerrit). We definitely need to look into our processes again and how to spread all that work reviewing, testing, and integrating. Likely also a topic for the 2026 Community Meetup in Paderborn. djpig is working on better documenting the current processes, see e.g. 1776: Start a new document CODE_CHECKLIST in Gerrit.
Coordinating big changes A related discussion is how to handle big changesets (e.g. currently the multipeer changes from plaisthos and the oob changes from lev). There was some unhappiness that these changesets are dropped without sufficient context and that makes it hard to keep track of all the developments. One advise is that developers that want to have big (or many) changes merged are encouraged to write a mail to the mailing list to provide a "cover letter" for the patch set and a convenient place to discuss the overall direction without getting bogged down in the discussion of individual changes. We have lost this practice since not generally using mail-based patchsets anymore. That can be also a good opportunity to point out dicussions happening in PRs for the RFC document.