WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
blog.feld.me
WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#2We need something with TLS in the name for the next one so people stop getting confused.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#3Now what? BearSSL.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#4We need something with TLS in the name for the next one so people stop getting confused.
MbedTLS[1] got your back!
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#5BearSSL by Thomas Pornin is always worth checking in on, not sure what the current status is but looks like it received a commit last year.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#6There’s always rustls.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#7NanoSSL by DigiCert
https://dev.digicert.com/trustcore-sdk/nanossl.html
It's opensource -> https://github.com/digicert/trustcore
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#8This is the WolfSSL maintainer's response[1]
> This ticket is rather long and has a lot of irrelevant content regarding this new topic. If I need to bring in a colleague I do not want them to have to wade through all the irrelevant context. If you would like, please open a new issue with regards to how we support middlebox compatibility.
The author turns this into:
> The GitHub issue comment left at the end leads me to believe that they aren't really interested in RFC compliance. There isn't a middleground here or a "different way" of implementing middlebox compatibility. It's either RFC compliant or not. And they're not.
This is a bad-faith interpretation of the maintainer's response. They only asked to open a new, more specific issue report. The maintainer always answered within minutes, which I find quite impressive (even after the author ghosted for months). The author consumed the maintainer's time and shouldn't get the blame for the author's problems.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#9BearSSL by Thomas Pornin is always worth checking in on, not sure what the current status is but looks like it received a commit last year. [1] https://bearssl.org
BearSSL is really cool, but it claims beta quality with the latest release in 2018, doesn't support TLS 1.3, and hasn't seen meaningful development in years. It's averaging about 1 commit per year recently, and they're not big ones.
Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?
#10This is the WolfSSL maintainer's response[1] > This ticket is rather long and has a lot of irrelevant content regarding this new topic. If I need to bring in a colleague I do not want them to have to wade through all the irrelevant context. If you would like, please open a new issue with regards to how we support middlebox compatibility. The author turns this into: > The GitHub issue comment left at the end leads me…
I don't know, I don't think it's really a huge waste of time considering I just read the entire comment thread in a handful of minutes. And beyond that, failing to comply with RFC requirements is the bug here -- a workaround existing for a specific language isn't a fix.