BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
bearssl.org
BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#2One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#3One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
Generally the cliche is about not implementing your own cryptographic algorithms. As long as they only implement existing algorithms and don't generate new ones, I don't think this applies.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#4One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
Generally the cliche is about not implementing your own cryptographic algorithms. As long as they only implement existing algorithms and don't generate new ones, I don't think this applies.
I used to think that; but I'm following Dan Boneh's crypto course on Coursera at the moment, and he specifically notes that you should not even try to implement known algorithms yourself (for production; you could do it ofcourse for the learning experience).
The reason is that there are subtle attacks on the implementation, such as timing attacks, which can leak information.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#5One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
Generally the cliche is about not implementing your own cryptographic algorithms. As long as they only implement existing algorithms and don't generate new ones, I don't think this applies.
I still think it applies.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#6One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
It is a combination of "many eyes" and "good documentation". What is needed is some good text that describes the design choice, the rationale, and all the tricky details; and then people who read it and think about it. I'll write and publish such text within the next few months.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally the cliche is about not implementing your own cryptographic algorithms. As long as they only implement existing algorithms and don't generate new ones, I don't think this applies.
I used to think that; but I'm following Dan Boneh's crypto course on Coursera at the moment, and he specifically notes that you should not even try to implement known algorithms yourself (for production; you could do it ofcourse for the learning experience). The reason is that there are subtle attacks on the implementation, such as timing attacks, which can leak information.
One of the point of the exercise is to provide constant-time implementations that provably do not leak such information. The hash functions, two AES, one DES/3DES, RSA and elliptic curve implementations in BearSSL have been written to be constant-time. I still have to write some document that explains how such things are done.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#8> written in C
Stopped reading there.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#9Needs some Galois SAW tests. Also using OpenSSL for testing wouldn't be a bad idea.
Re: BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS
#10One of the cliches about crypto is that you should not implement your own crypto. Not to suggest that the authors don't know what they are doing, but they mention 'alpha' quality themselves on the site. I wonder, how long does it take until a new library is deemed secure? What does the process look like? Trial and error? Or do they compare notes with vulnerabilities found in e.g. openssl?
Generally the cliche is about not implementing your own cryptographic algorithms. As long as they only implement existing algorithms and don't generate new ones, I don't think this applies.
this might give people false sense of security. implementing own crypto exposes you and those few souls that bought into your story. implementing bug-free "proven crypto" is near impossible task, but "proven crypto" part sells much better and so exposes many more un-expecting victims.