3 ms·

Linux Ready to Upstream Support for Google's PSP Encryption for TCP Connections

• phoronixrly 1y ago
  Source https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=64d2616972b77506731fa0122d3c48cb04dbe21b https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-n... Documentation https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/Documentation/networking/psp.rst https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-n...
• kasabali 1y ago
  Why would Google have encryption for Playstation Portable?
  • reactordev 1y ago
    Why would you associate Sony with Google?
    • doublerabbit 1y ago
      Both as evil as each other?
    • homarp 1y ago
      psp =psp security protocol = PlayStation Portable security protocol hence the question
      • kasabali 1y ago
        Lol, I've decided to look up and saw Wikipedia have 8 entries under computing for PSP acronym, none of them are Google's protocol :D [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSP#Computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSP#Computing
• SloopJon 1y ago
  The blog post announcing the PSP Security Protocol as open source: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/announcing-psp-security-protocol-is-now-open-source https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/identity-security/ann... HN discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31437033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31437033
• notherhack 1y ago
  For anyone else who's wondering what PSP is, from the Google spec[1]: The PSP Security Protocol (PSP) is a security protocol created by Google for encryption in transit. PSP uses several of the concepts from IPsec ESP to provide an encryption encapsulation layer on-top of IP that is streamlined and custom-built to address the requirements of large-scale data centers. So "PSP" really is a recursive acronym for "PSP Security Protocol". eyeroll [1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/google/psp/main/doc/PSP_Arch_Spec.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/google/psp/main/doc/PSP_Ar...
  • pkulak 1y ago
    Oh good. They made up an acronym, yet managed to find one of the ones already in the heaviest (computing) use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSP
    • mobilemidget 1y ago
      Should the acronym not be 'PSPSP'? Or that sounds too much like luring a cat?
      • c45y 1y ago
        It should be exactly that for exactly that reason
    • IshKebab 1y ago
      Not only that but since they chose a super original and totally not cringeworthy recursive acronym the first letter could have been literally anything. Ok in fairness it was probably originally something like Paul's Security Protocol and they felt that that wasn't professional enough or something.
      • Polizeiposaune 1y ago
        It appears to be referred to as the "Paddywhack Security Protocol" in some documents: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3708821.3710829 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3708821.3710829 https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp4425.pdf https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-modu... https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OCP-NET-Falcon https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OCP-NET-Falcon
• Veserv 1y ago
  While PSP seems like a reasonable protocol on its own, it is such a prime example of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. QUIC (over UDP) also requires encryption at its protocol layer in addition to encoding a encryption context identifier that is comparable, but non-compatible with the PSP header. So, a implementation that properly conforms to both standards would double encrypt the same data and send redundant headers/identifiers with no added security. They could relatively easily restructure QUIC and PSP to be fully compatible, letting PSP do connection identification and encryption and then layering QUIC framing on top. But no. What a mess.