Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday May 18 2014, @05:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the got-your-acronyms-here dept.

Bob Beck who is an OpenBSD, OpenSSH, and LibreSSL developer as well as the director of Alberta-based non-profit OpenBSD Foundation gave a talk earlier today at BSDCan 2014 in Ottawa, discussing and illustrating the OpenSSL problems that have led to the creation of a big fork of OpenSSL that is still API-compatible with the original, providing a drop-in replacement, without the #ifdef spaghetti and without its own "OpenSSL C" dialect.

Bob is claiming that the Maryland-incorporated OpenSSL Foundation is nothing but a for-profit front for FIPS consulting gigs, and that noone at OpenSSL is actually interested in maintaining OpenSSL, but merely adding more and more features, with the existing bugs rotting in bug-tracking for a staggering 4 years (CVE-2010-5298 has been independently re-discovered by the OpenBSD team after having been quietly reported in OpenSSL's RT some 4 years prior).

Bob reports that the bug-tracking system abandoned by OpenSSL has actually been very useful to the OpenBSD developers at finding and fixing even more of OpenSSL bugs in downstream LibreSSL, which still remain unfixed in upstream OpenSSL.

It is revealed that a lot of crude cleaning has already been completed, and the process is still ongoing, but some new ciphers already saw their addition to LibreSSL RFC 5639 EC Brainpool, ChaCha20, Poly1305, FRP256v1, and some derivatives based on the above, like ChaCha20-Poly1305 AEAD EVP from Adam Langley's Chromium OpenSSL patchset.

To conclude, Bob warns against portable LibreSSL knockoffs, and asks the community for Funding Commitment -- the Linux Foundation is turning a blind eye to LibreSSL, and instead is only committed to funding OpenSSL directly, despite the apparent lack of security-oriented direction within the OpenSSL project upstream. Funding can be directed to the OpenBSD Foundation.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by sobers_2002 on Sunday May 18 2014, @01:26PM

    by sobers_2002 (1268) on Sunday May 18 2014, @01:26PM (#44859)

    seeing as how they are looking for funding, it wouldn't make much sense to waste (or spend more on) their server resources by including SSL overhead for non-secure content.

    not using it where it's not required shows that they are actually walking the talk

  • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Sunday May 18 2014, @03:29PM

    by stormwyrm (717) on Sunday May 18 2014, @03:29PM (#44887) Journal

    What parts of a website offering security software are "non-secure content"? The part where you download the developer's PGP signing key? Sure you could in theory verify it via the web of trust, but how many people do you know who have been to a key signing party with Theo de Raadt or one of the other developers involved? Having an SSL website allows fallback to the PKI to augment the web of trust.

    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.