+* Why does the OpenSSL test suite fail in BN_sqr test [on a 64-bit platform]?
+
+Failure in BN_sqr test is most likely caused by a failure to configure the
+toolkit for current platform or lack of support for the platform in question.
+Run './config -t' and './apps/openssl version -p'. Do these platform
+identifiers match? If they don't, then you most likely failed to run
+./config and you're hereby advised to do so before filing a bug report.
+If ./config itself fails to run, then it's most likely problem with your
+local environment and you should turn to your system administrator (or
+similar). If identifiers match (and/or no alternative identifier is
+suggested by ./config script), then the platform is unsupported. There might
+or might not be a workaround. Most notably on SPARC64 platforms with GNU
+C compiler you should be able to produce a working build by running
+'./config -m32'. I understand that -m32 might not be what you want/need,
+but the build should be operational. For further details turn to
+<openssl-dev@openssl.org>.
+
+* Why does OpenBSD-i386 build fail on des-586.s with "Unimplemented segment type"?
+
+As of 0.9.7 assembler routines were overhauled for position independence
+of the machine code, which is essential for shared library support. For
+some reason OpenBSD is equipped with an out-of-date GNU assembler which
+finds the new code offensive. To work around the problem, configure with
+no-asm (and sacrifice a great deal of performance) or patch your assembler
+according to <URL: http://www.openssl.org/~appro/gas-1.92.3.OpenBSD.patch>.
+For your convenience a pre-compiled replacement binary is provided at
+<URL: http://www.openssl.org/~appro/gas-1.92.3.static.aout.bin>.
+Reportedly elder *BSD a.out platforms also suffer from this problem and
+remedy should be same. Provided binary is statically linked and should be
+working across wider range of *BSD branches, not just OpenBSD.
+
+* Why does the OpenSSL test suite fail in sha512t on x86 CPU?
+
+If the test program in question fails withs SIGILL, Illegal Instruction
+exception, then you more than likely to run SSE2-capable CPU, such as
+Intel P4, under control of kernel which does not support SSE2
+instruction extensions. See accompanying INSTALL file and
+OPENSSL_ia32cap(3) documentation page for further information.
+
+* Why does compiler fail to compile sha512.c?
+
+OpenSSL SHA-512 implementation depends on compiler support for 64-bit
+integer type. Few elder compilers [ULTRIX cc, SCO compiler to mention a
+couple] lack support for this and therefore are incapable of compiling
+the module in question. The recommendation is to disable SHA-512 by
+adding no-sha512 to ./config [or ./Configure] command line. Another
+possible alternative might be to switch to GCC.
+
+* Test suite still fails, what to do?
+
+Another common reason for test failures is bugs in the toolchain
+or run-time environment. Known cases of this are documented in the
+PROBLEMS file, please review it before you beat the drum. Even if you
+don't find anything in that file, please do consider the possibility
+of a compiler bug. Compiler bugs often appear in rather bizarre ways,
+they never make sense, and tend to emerge when you least expect
+them. One thing to try is to reduce the level of optimization (such
+as by editing the CFLAG variable line in the top-level Makefile),
+and then recompile and re-run the test.
+
+* I think I've found a bug, what should I do?
+
+If you are a new user then it is quite likely you haven't found a bug and
+something is happening you aren't familiar with. Check this FAQ, the associated
+documentation and the mailing lists for similar queries. If you are still
+unsure whether it is a bug or not submit a query to the openssl-users mailing
+list.
+
+If you think you have found a bug based on the output of static analysis tools
+then please manually check the issue is genuine. Such tools can produce a
+LOT of false positives.
+
+
+* I'm SURE I've found a bug, how do I report it?
+
+To avoid duplicated reports check the mailing lists and release notes for the
+relevant version of OpenSSL to see if the problem has been reported already.
+
+Bug reports with no security implications should be sent to the request
+tracker. This can be done by mailing the report to <rt@openssl.org> (or its
+alias <openssl-bugs@openssl.org>), please note that messages sent to the
+request tracker also appear in the public openssl-dev mailing list.
+
+The report should be in plain text. Any patches should be sent as
+plain text attachments because some mailers corrupt patches sent inline.
+If your issue affects multiple versions of OpenSSL check any patches apply
+cleanly and, if possible include patches to each affected version.
+
+The report should be given a meaningful subject line briefly summarising the
+issue. Just "bug in OpenSSL" or "bug in OpenSSL 0.9.8n" is not very helpful.
+
+By sending reports to the request tracker the bug can then be given a priority
+and assigned to the appropriate maintainer. The history of discussions can be
+accessed and if the issue has been addressed or a reason why not. If patches
+are only sent to openssl-dev they can be mislaid if a team member has to
+wade through months of old messages to review the discussion.
+
+See also <URL: http://www.openssl.org/support/rt.html>
+
+
+* I've found a security issue, how do I report it?
+
+If you think your bug has security implications then please send it to
+openssl-security@openssl.org if you don't get a prompt reply at least
+acknowledging receipt then resend or mail it directly to one of the
+more active team members (e.g. Steve). If you wish to use PGP to send
+in a report please use one or more of the keys of the team members listed
+at <URL: http://www.openssl.org/about/>
+
+Note that bugs only present in the openssl utility are not in general
+considered to be security issues.
+