> 5. People poo poo any alternative to OpenSSL because it's not 100% feature complete and besides the best crypto people are already working on OpenSSL so what

> 5. People poo poo any alternative to OpenSSL because it's not 100% feature complete and besides the best crypto people are already working on OpenSSL so what do these schmucks know? Here's a strategy: Take OpenSSL, remove a bunch of stuff that almost nobody needs, rearrange the code to make it clearer. You will get BoringSSL. Take the BoringSSL code, remove more stuff that people outside of Google generally don't need. Temporarily remove the X.509 code and the TLS code so that you can remove even more stuff. Next, write bindings for the remaining code for a safe language like Rust, so that the replacement X.509 and TLS code can be written in the safer language, while still using the OpenSSL crypto code. Then, write the new X.509 code, focusing on what really is needed and ignoring all the extra cruft that was added to X.509 but which doesn't actually improve security. Then, over time, refactor the the language bindings so more code is written in the safe language and less code is written in C, with the goal of almost all the code that isn't implementing directly crypto algorithms being in the safe language. Then, add a good, clean TLS implementation in the safe language, that focuses on the good parts of TLS, and that avoids all the legacy cruft that makes TLS seem complicated. I've been doing an experiment along these lines. I've open sourced two parts so far: 1. https://github.com/briansmith/ring https://github.com/briansmith/ring 2. https://github.com/briansmith/webpki https://github.com/briansmith/webpki It is a big project, but I am pretty sure it is going to succeed.