libressl.org is inaccessible via ssl - is it some kind of irony or something?
LibreSSL
151–160 of 262 posts
Re: LibreSSL
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably none. Windows has its own CSP library which is a little more convenient in a win32 context than OpenSSL or anything POSIX TBH. I think they're doing the right thing here.
Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!" I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin. The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new ver…
Its not a replacement for OpenSSL, OpenSSL will continue to exists as it is, but in a while when libressl is stable enough you can choose on or the other.
Its just a fork.
Re: LibreSSL
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd settle for great software and an innocuous, professional landing page. Let's have standards, people.
libressl.org is the most professional landing page a project could ever have, what more do you want blink tags hero unigs, marketing spots, slideshows?? Every sentence and paragraph on that page is meaningful, unlike _any_ modern web crap app/mvp where visitor has to click and mock about just to find what the hell the page/project is about. Here its in the first sentence and you cant miss it.
And they could make it look decent by replacing Comic Sans with Arial, Times or something similarly simple. You can't tell me they used Comic for any reason but to annoy people.
Re: LibreSSL
#154I like their tools like pfctl, raidctl. Hopefully they create something like sslctl.
Re: LibreSSL
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the tone of the page and the footer prevents me from taking these guys seriously, especially in this area (even more so with recent events).
At least they succeeded in their goal of annoying web hipsters. Why don't you sell your fixie on craigslist and donate some money anyway, please?
Do you think your tone will encourage anyone to donate?
Re: LibreSSL
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe it's better to switch to NSS, the original SSL library developed by Netscape (now by Mozilla, Google, etc.), that is available under better open source licenses, is used in Firefox, (Chrome), OpenOffice, etc. and has an optional compatible API to OpenSSL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services
Curiously, the Heartbleed bug was found by the Google engineer who is working on replacing NSS with OpenSSL in Chrome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ML11ZyyMpnAr6clIAwWrXD53... From the Pros & Cons table, it doesn't seem that NSS is obviously superior to OpenSSL. Both seem to suffer from focus on extra features instead of maintenance and reliability.
"Both seem to suffer from focus on extra features instead of maintenance and reliability."
Unfortunately in the SSL/TLS world, true security is a product of both, as minor flaws in the actual protocol itself are a common enough discovery to make the introduction of new "features" often quite key to the security of the implementation.
Re: LibreSSL
#157With close to years of C under my belt, I believe it's a major error, today, to write a critical cryptographic library in C. OK, do the codecs in C if it's the only way to meet performance requirements. But the rest must be written in a language that's reasonably analyzable statically, and with adequate abstractions. Seriously, have you looked at the filthy mess of leaky abstractions that OpenSSL's BIO system is? How…
They're making a fork of OpenSSL, and removing all the cruft. Porting it to a completely different language would be an error. There are several alternatives to OpenSSL available and/or popping up right now. They might or might not be a better choice for new developments. But refactoring OpenSSL (where a lot of currently used software depends upon) is certainly not a dumb decision.
Agreed, there's no realistic way to port OpenSSL to a new language. What I'm saying is, I think a clean-up fork of OpenSSL will divide the workforce per project, without dramatically improving security.
So it's not "dumb", but I expect the net result to be negative. At least a clean reimplementation featuring XXI-th century technologies would have a non-zero chance to produce something great.
Re: LibreSSL
#158Dear god.. Y comic sans .. !!!!
Re: LibreSSL
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
libressl.org is the most professional landing page a project could ever have, what more do you want blink tags hero unigs, marketing spots, slideshows?? Every sentence and paragraph on that page is meaningful, unlike _any_ modern web crap app/mvp where visitor has to click and mock about just to find what the hell the page/project is about. Here its in the first sentence and you cant miss it.
And they could make it look decent by replacing Comic Sans with Arial, Times or something similarly simple. You can't tell me they used Comic for any reason but to annoy people.
They used Comic to make a joke about annoying hipsters, not to actually annoy anyone.
Re: LibreSSL
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
libressl.org is the most professional landing page a project could ever have, what more do you want blink tags hero unigs, marketing spots, slideshows?? Every sentence and paragraph on that page is meaningful, unlike _any_ modern web crap app/mvp where visitor has to click and mock about just to find what the hell the page/project is about. Here its in the first sentence and you cant miss it.
And they could make it look decent by replacing Comic Sans with Arial, Times or something similarly simple. You can't tell me they used Comic for any reason but to annoy people.
May be you missed to read the footer of the page.. the last line, Infact they are also trying to make the same point as you said (why not use Arial or Times and get rid of comic sans)