7 ms·
Sounds like game over for google. That said, there is trend even outside of google to move away from high levels of configurability in these sort of security s
by slownews45 5y ago
Sounds like game over for google.
That said, there is trend even outside of google to move away from high levels of configurability in these sort of security sensitive areas. I'd be curious what a system like wireguard lets you do in terms of bit twiddling.
OpenSSL was sort of famous for letting your turn just about every knob you wanted. Not sure that was a ton better.
And I have heard some concern that folks like apple put so much into attack surface on things like imessage (memoji's?) for messages from unknown and untrusted users (ie, new users you aren't texting with can send entire set of stuff imessage supports which is a TON vs just being text only to start). So even in other areas dialing down things might be helpful.
- jeroenhd 5y agoI agree with Google that applications shouldn't normally be setting these parameters manually and I agree with their chosen defaults, but if developers are going through the effort of setting these values they're clearly doing it for a reason. That reason could be "the API doesn't allow developers to easily access the defaults" but the fix for that would be something completely different. Even in OpenSSL you don't get that much choice in TLS 1.3 because the number of usable ciphers and key exchange methods has been severely reduced.
- tssva 5y ago"I'd be curious what a system like wireguard lets you do in terms of bit twiddling." WireGuard doesn't allow you to do anything in terms of bit twiddling. This is one of the claimed benefits of WireGuard over OpenVPN or IPsec.
- tptacek 5y agoTo pile on: WireGuard doesn't even have ciphersuites, exactly because of the arguments Filippo makes in this post. You get Curve25519 and ChaPoly, and that's it.
- slownews45 5y agoIs it clear that then that as OP says this is a terrible idea? It seems then in keeping with ideas being followed elsewhere. Casually (not a security expert) this makes a let of sense to me. If I'm copying my stack overflow code out for my security stuff, maybe have fewer footguns? Not sure this is a terrible idea then.