Basic info

Topics

New: 2.6.x release
Some security fixes recently released in 2.7.7 didn't apply cleanly to 2.6.x.
Backporting it to 2.6 is ongoing, exact release date of that is not yet known.
Updated: 2.7.x release
Version 2.7.7 went out last week and contains some security fixes and bugfixes.
We however were not able to address all reported issues in one go, and we didn't want to hold back releasing to get it all in.
The next 2.7.x release, version 2.7.8, is planned for 3 weeks from now.

Updated: 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.
This would allow for a client to for example select the best available server based on test results.
This is currently under review: https://gerrit.openvpn.net/q/topic:%22oob-server-probe%22

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.
For the t-shirt we have some idea of what to do. Will check with designer if he can do it for us.

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.
No clear decision made as yet. Concerns raised about new avenues of opening tickets/PRs.

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.

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.