Meanwhile, some old instructions are available in this comment from 2010. File names may be outdated, but the general idea is the same.

As mentioned by wiper in another comment, replacing {ZABBIX_REVISION} with a (random) number in include/version.h may be needed.

I believe we should first tackle ZBX-8054 (there are also some build instructions).

If I understand correctly, you don't distribute the agent with encryption because of licensing/legal issues.

Documenting would be great (please x86 as well as 64 bit).

I know we're not *nix, but I think that some of the environment setup and building could be scripted in a batch file which could make it even easier. If users have wget.exe, even the downloads could be automated. That would just leave the Microsoft setup GUI to be done manually.

edit: Another idea to make the dev environment easier to setup: Microsoft has a free download available of virtual machines for VMWare, Virtualbox, etc. These include Windows 10 and Visual Studio. MS Virtual Machine Downloads These are evals which expire after a few months, but for our purposes, I think they'd be perfect.

palivoda, Yes, licensing is the issue. Great idea about VM and trail license, but we are very stretched to put our hands on to automatic build now. Check out last comment at - ZBXNEXT-3047. This task is about documentation how to build. If you can create script based on this instruction please attach it to ZBXNEXT-3047 and let us know. We will review and if licensing is OK we could include it in to our continuous build.... and we will not need to document this. Please keep in mind we have to build agents for various Windows platforms. 

Thanks for clarifying. I think most people don't understand that it is a legal issue, not a technical one why there are no SSL binaries.

sh0thub has provided excellent instructions on 3047 on how to build. I see only two areas where what he created could be improved:

1. Would be nice to have steps to build OpenSSL from source as well. It's not ideal to rely on trusting the executable provided by a third party when you can build from source instead. I realize it's unlikely there's some malware or vulnerability in the OpenSSL-Windows setup executable, but still..
2. Have most or all of the build steps in a batch file as I suggested. Theoretically, it could be simplified to downloading the Windows VM from Microsoft, downloading a batch file and wget.exe.

Of course, that's easier said than done. Not sure, but if you're hiring, sh0thub would make an excellent addition

edit: Thomas Oftring suggests here 3047 that wolfSSL may provide a good legal and technical solution. They have a GPL2 and commercial license option. They include an "OpenSSL compatibility layer" which might help with development.

Mark, Rostislav - is there a writeup on the licensing detail anywhere?

While ZBXNEXT-3047 talks about DLL distribution, it's not very detailed on the legal side.

@Mark

can you describe the legal problem?

I don't know. palivoda from Zabbix edited my comment to include the info about the legal issue. He'd be the one to add some details.

Libraries we use:

Visual C++ redistributables

GnuTLS Transport Layer Security Library

OpenSSL License that is going to move to standard Apache license, but until then:

• 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following * acknowledgment: * "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project * for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)"

SSLeay License:

• 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * "This product includes cryptographic software written by * Eric Young ([email protected])" * The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the library * being used are not cryptographic related .

• 4. If you include any Windows specific code (or a derivative thereof) from * the apps directory (application code) you must include an acknowledgement: * "This product includes software written by Tim Hudson ([email protected])

palivoda 

where is the problem on this?