Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:31:06 -0400 From: Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> To: John Hein <jh-fbml@snkmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Crypto overhaul Message-ID: <ace2b250-e0fc-acc0-f2d8-506c52824695@metricspace.net> In-Reply-To: <4207-1509111977-98568@sneakemail.com> References: <dc08792a-3215-611c-eb9f-4936a0d621f9@metricspace.net> <4207-1509111977-98568@sneakemail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ace2b250-e0fc-acc0-f2d8-506c52824695>