From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Oct 28 23:31:07 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE22E50747; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 23:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@metricspace.net) Received: from mail.metricspace.net (mail.metricspace.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:617::107]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B66D83D9B; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 23:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@metricspace.net) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:617:3210:b3ff:fe77:ca3f] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:617:3210:b3ff:fe77:ca3f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: eric) by mail.metricspace.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9489D174B; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 23:31:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Crypto overhaul To: John Hein , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org References: <4207-1509111977-98568@sneakemail.com> From: Eric McCorkle Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:31:06 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4207-1509111977-98568@sneakemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 23:31:07 -0000 On 10/27/2017 09:46, John Hein wrote: > What's the overhaul goal here? There's basic crypto libraries with > symmetric & assymmetric crypto & hashing (e.g., NaCL, libsodium, > openssl's libcrypto). There's libraries that add support for SSL/TLS > & X.509 certificates and such. There's stuff to support using > crypto hardware (accelerators, secure crypto token storage devices). > > And is the thought to [eventually] replace openssl in base with > something lighter perhaps? > > I assume we're looking for bsd, isc, mit, etc., style licenses only. > Sorry for being slow to reply. There's a couple of goals that seem to be in common here (and which I've seen reflected in the comments to my original posting. * Dissatisfaction with the OpenSSL codebase and its history of vulnerabilities. * Desire to consolidate the crypto implementations, specifically, for a crypto library that can serve userland, kernel, and bootloaders. * In my case, the trust framework stuff I wrote about requires public-key crypto in the kernel and loader, which isn't something the kernel crypto framework can do. * It's also harder to add new ciphers when there's multiple crypto codebases.