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

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#21

Post by koakuma-chan »

gspr wrote: post #18
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 still outsources cryptographic primitives. I believe the currently supported providers of those are… drumroll… AWS-LC and Ring. The latter is a fork of BoringSSL. The article describes AWS-LC and BoringSSL as "Googled and Amazoned to death; they don't care about anyone but their own use cases". The state of things sucks :-(

there is https://github.com/RustCrypto/rustls-rustcrypto fwiw

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#23

Post by halapro »

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?

Not great behavior I agree, but what else is there to say other than "it does not match the spec at point 1.2.3"?

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#24

Post by hypeatei »

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…

The maintainer should just open a new issue for RFC compliance himself since that's a pretty big issue and he obviously thinks OP spams too much.

This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#25

Post by Phemist »

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…

This issue has a similar conversational rhythm that led to the AI agent hit piece that was trending yesterday:

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

The OPs blog post also reeks of a similar style to the hit piece.

Given the large delay between the initial report and further responses by the user `feld`, I wonder if an OpenClaw agent was given free reign to try to clear up outstanding issues in some project, including handling the communication with the project maintainers?

Maybe I am getting too paranoid..

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#26

Post by Semaphor »

halapro wrote: post #23
deng wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not great behavior I agree, but what else is there to say other than "it does not match the spec at point 1.2.3"?

Then opening the ticket should be easy enough?

I certainly understand the maintainer here, because that’s what I keep telling colleagues at work.

Tickets get really cumbersome if they are not clear and actionable.

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#27

Post by deng »

hypeatei wrote: post #24
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…

The maintainer should just open a new issue for RFC compliance himself since that's a pretty big issue and he obviously thinks OP spams too much. This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.

> The maintainer should just

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

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#29

Post by hypeatei »

deng wrote: post #27
hypeatei wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maintainer should just open a new issue for RFC compliance himself since that's a pretty big issue and he obviously thinks OP spams too much. This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.

> 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 pedestals because their title is "FOSS maintainer"

Re: WolfSSL sucks too, so now what?

#30

Post by teekert »

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…

A reasonable reply indeed from the maintainer, this happens a lot where you think together in an issue and identify whats really wrong near the end. Only then is one able to articulate an issue in a helpful, concise way. Perhaps GH could add a feature to facilitate this pattern.
Post reply on HN