Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › OpenBSD fork OpenSSL: LibreSSL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OpenBSD fork OpenSSL: LibreSSL - Page 3

post #21 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Agreed here..... Maybe take the OEM approach.... always have two main suppliers. They should be compatible and swappable.
Oh definitely on the compatibility front. Not sure I agree with the two main suppliers point but I do understand your point and do agree that too many SSL libraries are a bad thing. I think we might just have to agree to disagree on what number is "too many" (though thinking about it, I think 3 or 4 open source libraries is about as high as I'd be happy to go - so I'm not that far behind you)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

The concern is that we absolutely do need more investment on these foundation libraries. They may not be as "sexy" as a new browser but that are crucial. Hopefully, major corporation will start donating human capital and resources after this SSL bug.
Absolutely. It's amazing how often critical frameworks get ignored because everyone is lured in by the sexy side of programming frown.gif
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Oh definitely on the compatibility front. Not sure I agree with the two main suppliers point but I do understand your point and do agree that too many SSL libraries are a bad thing. I think we might just have to agree to disagree on what number is "too many" (though thinking about it, I think 3 or 4 open source libraries is about as high as I'd be happy to go - so I'm not that far behind you)
Two is the minimum! This is one reason Intel needed AMD.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Absolutely. It's amazing how often critical frameworks get ignored because everyone is lured in by the sexy side of programming frown.gif
Raise your hand if you love documenting! tongue.gif
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Two is the minimum! This is one reason Intel needed AMD.
Ahh yes. In that case I completely agree with you smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Raise your hand if you love documenting! tongue.gif
hahaha too true
post #24 of 30
They not sending patches to upstream OpenSSL because the current authors are irresponsible and have done enough damage as is. It's not just the heartbleed bug, if you been following the audit, the OpenBSD guys have found more moments to realize the OpenSSL authors are out of their depth to develop such important software.

I'm actually a little surprised that the OpenBSD guys are only doing this audit now, considering that OpenSSH is dependent on it. So have they been assuming that OpenSSL has been secure all this time?

I think this fork is a good thing, look what they did with SSH and turned it into OpenSSH. Hopefully LibreSSL becomes the standard, such a shame about the name though.
post #25 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

They not sending patches to upstream OpenSSL because the current authors are irresponsible and have done enough damage as is. It's not just the heartbleed bug, if you been following the audit, the OpenBSD guys have found more moments to realize the OpenSSL authors are out of their depth to develop such important software.

I'm actually a little surprised that the OpenBSD guys are only doing this audit now, considering that OpenSSH is dependent on it. So have they been assuming that OpenSSL has been secure all this time?

I think this fork is a good thing, look what they did with SSH and turned it into OpenSSH. Hopefully LibreSSL becomes the standard, such a shame about the name though.

Shock horror, but I agree with you on all those points.

I now need to lie down as I feel the universe might implode at any moment....
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

such a shame about the name though.

I do agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Shock horror, but I agree with you on all those points.

I now need to lie down as I feel the universe might implode at any moment....

lachen.gif
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

Hopefully LibreSSL becomes the standard, such a shame about the name though.
I hope it doesn't become the standard. I hope the SSL monopoly will end and more variety will happen. Also, yeah, what's up with that name? What about OpenTLS? Maybe they are trying to get an instant hit like the LibreOffice guys, doubt that was because of the name. wink.gif

I care almost zero about the name though.
post #28 of 30
OpenTLS would definitely be better. Much easier to say. LibreOffice still sounds absurd.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 MSI X58 Pro-E Gigabyte GTX 970 (GV-N970IX-4GD) 3x2GB G.Skill DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
840 Pro Caviar Black LG BD-ROM Windows 8.1 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell U2311H Turbo-Trak (Google it :D) Corsair HX-520 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM690 Mionix Avior 7000 Everglide Titan AKG K 242 HD 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 D0 MSI X58 Pro-E Gigabyte GTX 970 (GV-N970IX-4GD) 3x2GB G.Skill DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
840 Pro Caviar Black LG BD-ROM Windows 8.1 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2713HM Dell U2311H Turbo-Trak (Google it :D) Corsair HX-520 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM690 Mionix Avior 7000 Everglide Titan AKG K 242 HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeekei View Post

I hope it doesn't become the standard. I hope the SSL monopoly will end and more variety will happen.

Ya let's get the Debian folks to create a fork too, because they have a great security track record. rolleyes.gif
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBlame View Post

Ya let's get the Debian folks to create a fork too, because they have a great security track record. rolleyes.gif

I'm gonna ignore the Debian claim. What I meant was, if there were a more even distribution of different SSL/TLS implementations, a bug in one of them will not cause the chaos like Heartbleed did.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux, Unix
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › OpenBSD fork OpenSSL: LibreSSL