From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Fri Dec 11 12:57:12 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90C94AF3D9 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:57:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from host64.shmhost.net (host64.shmhost.net [213.239.241.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CsrQw13R0z3pVS for ; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:57:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from p200300cd8727c9fca4b593819ba8e1d5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p200300cd8727c9fca4b593819ba8e1d5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cd:8727:c9fc:a4b5:9381:9ba8:e1d5]) by host64.shmhost.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CsrQt3jBMzP2P8; Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:57:10 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-20:33.openssl From: Franco Fichtner In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:57:10 +0100 Cc: Martin Simmons , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6E2E0169-F2E8-4562-85BA-42FC28B07F35@lastsummer.de> References: <20201209230300.03251CA1@freefall.freebsd.org> <20201211064628.GM31099@funkthat.com> <202012111138.0BBBc2Eq006002@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <2AF24633-7E9F-4B92-8E99-6A81CD9D3AF8@lastsummer.de> To: Tomasz CEDRO X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at host64.shmhost.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CsrQw13R0z3pVS X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of franco@lastsummer.de has no SPF policy when checking 213.239.241.64) smtp.mailfrom=franco@lastsummer.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.38 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[lastsummer.de]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.98)[0.979]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[213.239.241.64:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[213.239.241.64:from]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:213.239.192.0/18, country:DE]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-security] X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:57:12 -0000 > On 11. Dec 2020, at 1:36 PM, Tomasz CEDRO wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:44 PM Franco Fichtner wrote: >>> On 11. Dec 2020, at 12:38 PM, Martin Simmons = wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 22:46:28 -0800, John-Mark Gurney said: >>>> What are peoples thoughts on how to address the support mismatch = between >>>> FreeBSD and OpenSSL? And how to address it? >>> Maybe it would help a little if the packages on pkg.FreeBSD.org all = used the >>> pkg version of OpenSSL? Currently, it looks like you have build = your own >>> ports if you want that. >>=20 >> This pretty much breaks LibreSSL ports usage for binary package = consumers. >=20 > Why not switch to LibreSSL as default? :-) Good question. LibreSSL lacks engine and PSK support. TLS 1.3 was tailing behind. = Missing CMS also was a large issue for those who needed it. Someone with more = in- depth knowledge can probably name more. The other issue with LibreSSL in general is that third party support is = mostly ok, but some high profile cases have had issues with it for years: = HAProxy, OpenVPN, StrongSwan just to name a few. Having ports contributors and = committers chase these unthankful quests is probably not worth the overall effort. It works pretty well as a ports crypto replacement, but for the reasons = listed above it is probably not going to happen on a default scale. Also, LibreSSL in base was a failed experiment in HardenedBSD. Its = release cycle and support policy is tailored neatly around OpenBSD releases and the = attempt to break ABI compatibility in packages while you retrofit a new version = into a minor release can fail pretty spectacularly. I'm not being skeptical. I helped improve overall LibreSSL support in = the ports tree since 2015. The LibreSSL team is doing a great job all things = considered. This is simply the current reality of keeping LibreSSL in ports a steady alternative. Cheers, Franco