From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 10 23:03:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D7516A4CE; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pd3mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901F943D45; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk) Received: from pd5mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (pd5mr5so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.181]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I8J005JV41DEUA0@l-daemon>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml3so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.147]) by pd5mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I8J00A3941DB680@pd5mr5so.prod.shaw.ca>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (S0106006067227a4a.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.233.42])2003)) with ESMTP id <0I8J0031R41CWA@l-daemon>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:03:13 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:03:10 -0800 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <49534.208.4.77.66.1102717882.squirrel@208.4.77.66> To: Ryan Sommers Message-id: <41BA2B2E.1070304@wadham.ox.ac.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: "Your message of Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:57:42 PST." <41B9D586.5070403@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <200412101755.iBAHt55A090986@grovel.grondar.org> <49534.208.4.77.66.1102717882.squirrel@208.4.77.66> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041107) cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding standalone RSA code X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:03:14 -0000 Ryan Sommers wrote: > I have to say I'm with Mark and das@ (I believe it was). As good as > smaller and more efficeint sounds, when it comes to crypto libraries I'd ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > rather stick with OpenSSL. You're missing the point. I'm not talking about "smaller and more efficient". I'm talking about "smaller and more secure". > It's definately a lot more source code, > however, as stated above, it has quite a few more eyes on it as well. Openssl has had 8 significant security flaws fixed in the past two years. Yes, they have more eyes looking at their code -- but even if they've found 80% of the security problems in the past two years, that still leaves two major security flaws left. Further, speaking from my experience on secteam, I'm more than a little dubious of the "many eyes" concept anyway (at least when it comes to security issues); the amount of time that security flaws sit in our tree before anyone notices them is rather depressing. > What happens if during a lapse of ENOTIME for you a bug > comes up with the library and exposes a severe security flaw for an > application making use of it? In that case, the 9410 people (at last count) who have used FreeBSD Update in the past couple of years are already in trouble. :-) Colin Percival