Nuances of Replacing OpenSSL with Google's BoringSSL

#1

Post by cossacklabs » Tue, Jul 11, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

Nuances of Replacing OpenSSL with Google's BoringSSL
cossacklabs.com

Re: Nuances of Replacing OpenSSL with Google's BoringSSL

#2

Post by giantahead » Tue, Jul 11, 2017, 7:57 PM UTC

Having seen the experiment in it's beginning (hola E and team), I wonder: out of things you didn't use, have you found the changes to be 'for better good' as well?

Re: Nuances of Replacing OpenSSL with Google's BoringSSL

#3

Post by 9gunpi » Tue, Jul 11, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

giantahead wrote: post #2

Having seen the experiment in it's beginning (hola E and team), I wonder: out of things you didn't use, have you found the changes to be 'for better good' as well?

Well, folks it's mostly about calling syntax, as it is mentioned in the post, and it's more about ensuring that shooting in the foot is hard.

However, given the change of codebase size, there must be more changes in domains we're not interested in, like implementation of legacy primitives and infrastructure around them.