Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 11 Dec 2020 14:03:45 +0100
From:      Tomasz CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info>
To:        Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de>
Cc:        Martin Simmons <martin@lispworks.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-20:33.openssl
Message-ID:  <CAM8r67CkuTqesUKUjKJ_piu7EWHSTN7cnWbDiR3q8ifNBNYOYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <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> <CAM8r67B6bp6KJH20u-NfwwZEYW6GDH%2BWwRTJqiCjVoWgQQBJOg@mail.gmail.com> <6E2E0169-F2E8-4562-85BA-42FC28B07F35@lastsummer.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:57 PM Franco Fichtner wrote:
> > On 11. Dec 2020, at 1:36 PM, Tomasz CEDRO wrote:
> > 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.
> >> This pretty much breaks LibreSSL ports usage for binary package consumers.
> > 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.

Thank you Franco! Too many reasons why not to.. looks like no good
alternative.. at least for now :-)

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAM8r67CkuTqesUKUjKJ_piu7EWHSTN7cnWbDiR3q8ifNBNYOYg>