From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sun Oct 29 17:15:15 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 E0CCBE475D7; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benlaurie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk0-x243.google.com (mail-qk0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9465D3D4; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benlaurie@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk0-x243.google.com with SMTP id x82so13545215qkb.12; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=KbBIk4wF/ij5htrJk8qDFgL2DO374EEvnIRSz+M4u14=; b=bjSZ1Y5IhkazDMzTcfW2GEKDpV9cpLSj73QkxfldZqtTNn6kyVO6B8JVtaBRWM+N9U 7Wq02fQsjosLL7Jv9fX2ONrakCnz/1IB2nJOKyLjgIbn/zovHvMSs5yVqKrla/IJ7SL4 lxQqIL29Ay+Xn9EI/ERl0Ram6ZpPByr6Jz2UBeGKrXqdyZsavjsuynW1nQp6uFolIU7Q QEHZydTVU9K24bZMmE5NyUMn5Sg3y072y3LXX5HP5qQ5jRsuHaKf6PrtySfL6dHexY/d KJJJQTfoRot9mLAvqu3vZoFxFQiO99Y2OmNrw8U1zujWhZGGOL4uA/0O+tONJ+sbr1r4 u84w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KbBIk4wF/ij5htrJk8qDFgL2DO374EEvnIRSz+M4u14=; b=ktaoKyARD/rwJdWMtd8IdWIgveryEkf/iXs7jAkYCVv7Rf8mR0uf3nr8iJEuw263dO 8DMnXRxFz0UfbyVYrt0EjTR+aF5x1cTJJ3fcbEHNQQSw3RspPwS9YZwsQLdg5Rlcl7Dn GzQLOW/rNBw+dFiygTyffCJ7/UlzsSu22hzNxPS0QCEOuQcef6Wcmgg/BfI8rXe4jDOa uY1RHWKLJ7Y/Ua1cKlzcFf3RRyC3tqPZleRqeAQxVnEAO2ah/zG9eMWhKc4uXlN1OXCR aYmIxd257HCtG5Vdb2eOTIjyapQPK5xB76h998k3g0KHKT+gs63YhqofRHEwXkyA1i1H U21A== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWaSG83MkoKTbep5LstQ16Y/xfjDSUJtVfCflHTqqFhsuPS/hWI dZw8fXhePgrDK8uknLJQqJemDcB1iCz1qNSbJUs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SHLAgMCXgjFKe2WMS89jNcGetcVG7fne3MoLNveq0lAcg97BCgjl7cLYIPXQbZ377mzsJi5JCKQmyA7tvKe/k= X-Received: by 10.55.197.20 with SMTP id p20mr9680636qki.229.1509297314773; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:15:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: benlaurie@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.22.174 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:15:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <61210249-105c-974c-1dae-1837e5969054@metricspace.net> References: <13959.1509132270@critter.freebsd.dk> <20171028022557.GE96685@kduck.kaduk.org> <23376.1509177812@critter.freebsd.dk> <20171028123132.GF96685@kduck.kaduk.org> <24228.1509196559@critter.freebsd.dk> <28039.1509260726@critter.freebsd.dk> <61210249-105c-974c-1dae-1837e5969054@metricspace.net> From: Ben Laurie Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:15:14 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YL3p4S4Fawfv-h3A9jWw9YR424Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: Crypto overhaul To: Eric McCorkle Cc: bf1783@gmail.com, Poul-Henning Kamp , Benjamin Kaduk , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-security@freebsd.org security" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:15:16 -0000 On 29 October 2017 at 15:17, Eric McCorkle wrote: > On 10/29/2017 09:46, bf wrote: >> On 10/29/17, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> -------- >>> In message , Eric >>> McCorkl >>> e writes: >>>> On 10/28/2017 09:15, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>>>> -------- >>>>> In message <20171028123132.GF96685@kduck.kaduk.org>, Benjamin Kaduk >>>>> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> I would say that the 1.1.x series is less bad, especially on the last >>>>>> count, >>>>>> but don't know how much you've looked at the differences in the new >>>>>> branch. >>>>> >>>>> While "less bad" is certainly a laudable goal for OpenSSL, I hope >>>>> FreeBSD has higher ambitions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm curious about your thoughts on LibreSSL as a possible option. >>> >>> It retains the horrible APIs, so the potential improvement is finite. >>> >> >> OpenBSD started the task of making OpenSSL easier to use by adding >> things like libtls >> >> (see https://man.openbsd.org/tls_init ) >> >> on top of their backwards-compatible libssl. There are similar >> efforts in other libraries like NaCl and its forks, such as libsodium >> ( cf. https://nacl.cr.yp.to/features.html and >> https://www.gitbook.com/book/jedisct1/libsodium/details ). Are these >> the kind of changes you are suggesting? > > I know the LibreSSL roadmap includes more plans to improve the API > design to make it more usable. > > Overall, I think LibreSSL is the best option, though there needs to be > some investigation into how easily it can be used for kernel and > boot-loader purposes. Things like libsodium are too narrow in their > focus, and BearSSL is too new. > > Plus the fact that LibreSSL originates from one of the BSDs and has its > backing is a significant advantage, I think. Mostly it originates from OpenSSL. :-)