undefined | Better HN

0 pointsicefo5y ago0 comments

Damn OpenSSL sounds a lot worse than I thought after reading those slides. The custom malloc, the function that allow you to jump anywhere in OpenSSL, the 17 layer deep IFDef, the dubious entropy that openSSL try to generate if the OS doesn't provide it, the bugs that sit in the issue tracker for years.

A lot of that uglyness seems to come from the fact that OpenSSL wants to support all environments (even DOS). I wonder why distributions haven't switched since LibreSSL was made to be API/ABI compatible with openSSL and target a POSIX OS. This would be much more justified than the ffmepg / libav thing imo.

0 comments

CameronNemo5y ago

>LibreSSL was made to be API/ABI compatible with openSSL and target a POSIX OS

LibreSSL is neither API compatible with newer OpenSSL versions, nor is it ABI compatible. In fact, they break ABI every six months. Furthermore LibreSSL upstream only targets OpenBSD, with the portable version existing as an afterthought.

The only linux distribution using LibreSSL is Void Linux (Alpine switched to OpenSSL some time ago). Even Void is considering switching to OpenSSL: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/20935 .

icefoOP5y ago

Thank you ! That was interesting read. The main problems with LibreSSL are software compatibility since most software only build against OpenSSL and performance because the portable version doesn't include optimisations for other platforms than x86_64

The slides came out in 2014 so the API / ABI thing was probably true then but not anymore.

Maybe things would have been different if LibreSSL was backed by a major Linux distribution and OpenBSD. Even then Unix/Linux is not the only target of a lot of software and I doubt a lot of developer would have put the time to support both.

[Edit] I just saw in an other comment that LibreSSL is used in MacOSX and windows for openSSH. Maybe developers will consider it if it becomes available on major platforms

CameronNemo5y ago

FYI Void recently enabled hardware acceleration for ARM and PowerPC architectures in LibreSSL.

chasil5y ago

Apple uses LibreSSL as I understand.

1 more reply

hoistbypetard5y ago

0. At least a couple did, but they were pretty niche-y. (Void was one, I think?)

1. It's a ton of packaging work even if the API/ABI were compatible (Calling it compatible is a bit of a stretch IMO).

2. One of the things LibreSSL removes is the FIPS validated stuff. Distributions that harbor ambitions of being used in large US corporate and government installations want that.

3. By the time the portable LibreSSL build system came out, there were already significant improvements afoot within the OpenSSL project.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the big ones I'm aware of.

kbenson5y ago

> 2. One of the things LibreSSL removes is the FIPS validated stuff. Distributions that harbor ambitions of being used in large US corporate and government installations want that.

Sounds like it could have happened if someone went to bat for it. Red Hat deciding to include it (even if they didn't replace OpenSSL with it immediately) and pushing to get it certified and the portability stuff more stable would have done this.

> 3. By the time the portable LibreSSL build system came out, there were already significant improvements afoot within the OpenSSL project.

That's probably the real reason. Although, given the stuff mentioned in that bug/talk and how much seems to have been based on extreme portability, unless OpenSSL decided to just give up on some aspects of that (I doubt it), then some of the problems (code complexity, not to mention ROP helpers) probably survive (not that I know).

Sohcahtoa825y ago

> A lot of that uglyness seems to come from the fact that OpenSSL wants to support all environments (even DOS).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember either BoringSSL or LibreSSL (or both?) saying that their fork removed support for DOS because not only did almost nobody use it, but it didn't even work anyways.

JesusIsKing5y ago

Yes. One of the devs hacking on it chronicled his experiences on tumblr of all things if IIRC correctly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

CameronNemo5y ago

>LibreSSL was made to be API/ABI compatible with openSSL and target a POSIX OS

icefoOP5y ago

The slides came out in 2014 so the API / ABI thing was probably true then but not anymore.

[Edit] I just saw in an other comment that LibreSSL is used in MacOSX and windows for openSSH. Maybe developers will consider it if it becomes available on major platforms

CameronNemo5y ago

FYI Void recently enabled hardware acceleration for ARM and PowerPC architectures in LibreSSL.

chasil5y ago

Apple uses LibreSSL as I understand.

1 more reply

hoistbypetard5y ago

0. At least a couple did, but they were pretty niche-y. (Void was one, I think?)

1. It's a ton of packaging work even if the API/ABI were compatible (Calling it compatible is a bit of a stretch IMO).

2. One of the things LibreSSL removes is the FIPS validated stuff. Distributions that harbor ambitions of being used in large US corporate and government installations want that.

3. By the time the portable LibreSSL build system came out, there were already significant improvements afoot within the OpenSSL project.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the big ones I'm aware of.

kbenson5y ago

> 2. One of the things LibreSSL removes is the FIPS validated stuff. Distributions that harbor ambitions of being used in large US corporate and government installations want that.

> 3. By the time the portable LibreSSL build system came out, there were already significant improvements afoot within the OpenSSL project.

Sohcahtoa825y ago

> A lot of that uglyness seems to come from the fact that OpenSSL wants to support all environments (even DOS).

JesusIsKing5y ago

Yes. One of the devs hacking on it chronicled his experiences on tumblr of all things if IIRC correctly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse