51–60 of 262 posts
One annoying thing about OpenSSL is its license. I hope The Better Replacement™ fixes that as well (especially if its name gets to contain the string "Libre"), and it is not going to happen by forking OpenSSL.
One annoying thing about OpenSSL is its license. I hope The Better Replacement™ fixes that as well (especially if its name gets to contain the string "Libre"), and it is not going to happen by forking OpenSSL.
> removed MacOS, Netware, OS/2, VMS and Windows build machinery What are the plans for native Windows support? I don't know what they mean by "The right Portability team in place", but it'd be a joke if the lib would require CygWin or some other external portability scaffolding. And without proper Windows support LibreSSL will simply fragment OpenSSL user base. I guess it's still better than nothing, but it definitel…
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.
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 version, let's at least try to hit the major platforms.
I understand the point but this comes across as immature. OpenSSL has provided years of free software, supporting thousands of sites and applications. Of course it has its problems, and there is nothing wrong with adding more competition in this space. But what this space needs now, more than ever, is professionalism and pride in craft (by which I mean demonstrable unit test coverage, regression testing, fuzz testing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. This is a bit scary. I feel the resources would be better off focusing on merging with the official OpenSSL project rather than forking and _then_ asking for funding, essentially taking any potential funding from the official OpenSSL project.
I'd hope that I speak for the majority here when I say that OpenSSL has had its chance. This is the beauty of open source, nothing more. We can take this and make it better.
LibreSSL inherits all of the undiscovered vulnerabilities in its huge code base. I hope your harsh criticism carries over to its code base once these flaws are discovered here too. That's the beauty of open source.
I understand the point but this comes across as immature. OpenSSL has provided years of free software, supporting thousands of sites and applications. Of course it has its problems, and there is nothing wrong with adding more competition in this space. But what this space needs now, more than ever, is professionalism and pride in craft (by which I mean demonstrable unit test coverage, regression testing, fuzz testing…
They've already done massive amounts of work already - adding missing checks, documenting a metric ton of magic numbers, removing VMS support, fixing year 2038 bugs, removing insecure cypher support, removing less secure replacements for secure OS inbuilts, unused code, and more, see http://opensslrampage.org . On a side note, I was really hoping for the name to be OpenTLS (consistent with OpenBSD and OpenSSH, which…
I imagine supporting non-POSIX operating systems, or not exactly conforming ones, to have its challenges, but is it really hard to make this stuff working in Linux and Open/NET/Free BSD from day one? It seems to me a better approach to start this way, without to mention that the potential developers base you get if you support Linux ASAP can be larger.
Comic Sans? Really? Edit: To those downvoting, yes, I saw the footer. This doesn't excuse their childish behavior. I will not be donating to this project if this is the level of seriousness they have for it.
I imagine supporting non-POSIX operating systems, or not exactly conforming ones, to have its challenges, but is it really hard to make this stuff working in Linux and Open/NET/Free BSD from day one? It seems to me a better approach to start this way, without to mention that the potential developers base you get if you support Linux ASAP can be larger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Moreover, there is a lot of Windows projects that are written in inherently portable way and using OpenSSL API is the most natural choice for them. If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers.
Well I disagree. Whilst it's a natural choice for portability, when you port to a proprietary platform such as windows you lose a lot of the support and portability guarantees that POSIX gives you and the calling conventions and standards of many libraries. At this point it's advisable to pick a holistic 3rd party abstraction over this such as something right from APR to Qt that will abstract the platform specific im…
We can debate finer nuances of proper abstraction to the death, but it doesn't move a needle for people who already have OpenSSL dependencies in their code.