Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

blog.feld.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#31

Post by [deleted] »

deng wrote: post #12
reanimus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again: the maintainer does not say there is no bug. He says: please open a new issue, with a proper title and description for the actual underlying problem. Is that seriously too much to ask? Instead, the guy writes a whole blog post shitting on the project. Does anyone still wonder why people burn out on maintaining FOSS projects?

[deleted]

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#32

Post by deng »

hypeatei wrote: post #29
deng wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The maintainer should just Out of interest: which FOSS projects are you maintaining, and how many users do these have, approximately?

Out of interest, how is that relevant? Are we not able to criticize a FOSS maintainers response unless we run a project of scale ourselves? The maintainer is clearly engaging and knows what the problem is but stalls on the "last mile" which is issue creation. Do you agree? wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work. Regardless, we shouldn't put people on pedesta…

[flagged]

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#33

Post by hypeatei »

deng wrote: post #32
hypeatei wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest, how is that relevant? Are we not able to criticize a FOSS maintainers response unless we run a project of scale ourselves? The maintainer is clearly engaging and knows what the problem is but stalls on the "last mile" which is issue creation. Do you agree? wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work. Regardless, we shouldn't put people on pedesta…

[flagged]

> you probably wouldn't feel so entitled.

...what? Are we living in the same universe? What exactly did I say that makes me entitled?

> The user in question does not have a commercial license

Do you know that for sure or are you speculating?

> We shouldn't shit on other people's work we got for free

When did I shit on the work of wolfSSL? I'm saying that it appears they were engaging but got hung up on a small issue.

> It's you who needs to get down from that pedestal.

Respectfully, you need to get a grip.

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#36

Post by pocksuppet »

dwedge wrote: post #22
weinzierl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rustls is there. It has TLS in the name, it is good and there is a C FFI wrapper.

A c wrapper to rust feels like we've gone full circle

That would be amazing and really cement the proven value of Rust.

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#37

Post by SubjectToChange »

The blog author seems like a real piece of work. He ghosts the WolfSSL maintainer for over 160 days and when asked to open a new, more specific issue, he instead chooses to write a blog post denigrating the project. The WolfSSL maintainer was nothing but courteous and helpful throughout the entire exchange.

>...they aren't really interested in RFC compliance.

Yeah, well "feld" can't claim to be "interested in RFC compliance" either when he ghosts the issue for months and chooses to write blog posts instead of opening a new issue. Good grief.

If this is what the FreeBSD community is like, I want nothing to do with them.

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#38

Post by SubjectToChange »

stabbles wrote: post #15

Many people and projects have tried to ditch OpenSSL in favor of LibreSSL, WolfSSL, MbedTLS, etc, but by now many have returned to OpenSSL. The IQ curve meme with "just use OpenSSL" applies.

I don't see how OpenSSL can recover from it's 3.0 disaster. They would basically have to write off the past few years of development work and start over from version 1.1.1

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#39

Post by SubjectToChange »

meinersbur wrote: post #8

This 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…

Worse yet, despite publishing seventeen blog posts between filing the issue and finally responding to it, he has the gall to open with "Sorry I missed your replies (life gets busy)".

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#40

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #20
weinzierl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rustls is there. It has TLS in the name, it is good and there is a C FFI wrapper.

rustls doesn't have its own implementation of cryptography, you have to choose a provider like openssl or aws lc

Or rustcrypto. Rustls is a TLS layer that can wrap any cryptography layer providing the necessary primitives.
Post reply on HN