Great project; I think that BoringSSL is more geared towards server applications. I think the major improvements here are: - improvements in how they handle lo

Great project; I think that BoringSSL is more geared towards server applications. I think the major improvements here are: - improvements in how they handle locks and effort to avoid locks + use of thread local storage. - better protocol test suites (adopted from GO SSL implementation) - very good they threw out support for TLS renegotiation; nobody understands that, in addition it is always a big source of bugs. i am not sure that a good quality non blocking native random number generator is available on all client platform (other than linux), interesting that they also try to use BoringSSL in chrome (maybe here it would have been better to use the old crypto number generator where you only have to bother about a good random seed values) ( BTW do they have the good /dev/urandom in android ? Here they say the android has just /dev/urandom - no /dev/random at all, so this seems to be general google policy at google. http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/14669/how-to-select-dev-random-or-dev-urandom-in-the-code-in-android http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/14669/how-to-sel... )