3 ms·

Last I looked, BoringSSL[1] was a drop-in replacement for 1.1, as long as: 1. Your usecases intersect with Google's (they removed bunch of stuff during the ini

by plq 3y ago

Last I looked, BoringSSL[1] was a drop-in replacement for 1.1, as long as: 1. Your usecases intersect with Google's (they removed bunch of stuff during the initial forking phase). 2. You can handle the following: > Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability. [1]: https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/ https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/

asddubs 3y ago
What about libreSSL, the other fork? https://www.libressl.org/ https://www.libressl.org/ https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-openssl https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-open...
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Initially the idea seemed to be Libressl has better development practices => fewer bugs. The idea was this pays for a compatibility price. I think that didn't pan out very well longer term.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    I think it did in absolute terms, but didn't relatively - as a response to all the noise and forks, openssl did improve a lot as well.
    - ori_b 3y ago
      Can you be specific about what improved? After peeking at the repo, the biggest improvement seems to have been reindenting it.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    It's also not finished, and that is constrained by developer time and availability. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 and the reply: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 Edit: certainly, if you don't need what isn't there, LibreSSL could be a viable replacement.
  - aomix 3y ago
    I think the idea of using their new libTLS api alongside it was there early on. Adding "easier, foolproof api => even fewer bugs" to the mix. But that didn't seem to get much uptake.

by plq 3y ago

asddubs 3y ago

What about libreSSL, the other fork? https://www.libressl.org/ https://www.libressl.org/ https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-openssl https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-open...

tialaramex 3y ago
Initially the idea seemed to be Libressl has better development practices => fewer bugs. The idea was this pays for a compatibility price. I think that didn't pan out very well longer term.
- viraptor 3y ago
  I think it did in absolute terms, but didn't relatively - as a response to all the noise and forks, openssl did improve a lot as well.
  - ori_b 3y ago
    Can you be specific about what improved? After peeking at the repo, the biggest improvement seems to have been reindenting it.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  It's also not finished, and that is constrained by developer time and availability. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 and the reply: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 Edit: certainly, if you don't need what isn't there, LibreSSL could be a viable replacement.
- aomix 3y ago
  I think the idea of using their new libTLS api alongside it was there early on. Adding "easier, foolproof api => even fewer bugs" to the mix. But that didn't seem to get much uptake.