"We now do this consistently: a = malloc(n * sizeof(a));"

Isn't calloc(3) the safer paradigm (protecting against integer overflows, in case n sizeof > SIZE_MAX) recommanded for this case ? (besides the memory zeroing).

Excellent stuff. Good to know that last year's security problem has lead to some improvements in process.

I hope the Open SSL team now do regular code reviews of every change, of every line of code as part of their development process.