Understand here that a couple comments and a read of the website just aren’t enough to give you an informed opinion. The best I can do here is "trust me bro", a

Understand here that a couple comments and a read of the website just aren’t enough to give you an informed opinion. The best I can do here is "trust me bro", and a bit of social validation: https://monocypher.org/quality-assurance/audit https://monocypher.org/quality-assurance/audit (Cure53 audit, no bug found), https://www.mail-archive.com/curves@moderncrypto.org/msg01021.html https://www.mail-archive.com/curves@moderncrypto.org/msg0102... (Curve448 inventor says "Monocypher is an impressive piece of work.") > The people who wrote OpenSSL thought they knew what they were doing. The people who wrote OpenSSL had a much harder job, and my epistemic position is a lot better: I have over 20 years worth of additional collective wisdom to draw from, the primitives I implement are much* easier to deal with, and the problem I set out to solve is at least one order of magnitude easier. > Are you liable under the license they’re using? I’m not. And to be honest I’m on the fence on whether I should be. Nobody paid me for this work after all. On the other hand, if a law made me liable I wouldn’t complain too much to be honest. If it’s regulation more than liability, I already followed most, if not all, the procedures outlined in the upcoming EU law on software resilience. I should have little problem going all the way to full compliance there (except perhaps if they ask for third party audits, I’m not paying 6.000€ per release). > you’re responsible if it gets people hurt. Believe me, I know. Thankfully so far nobody reported being hurt in any way — even from the sevcrit. And I continue making sure it stays that way. --- By the way, I’m planning to work on an FPGA RISC-V core soon. I’m pretty sure nobody will give me any flak for this. And yet when you look at it, this is even more critical than a cryptographic library.