3 ms·
If you mean the OpenSSL CLI, it's hard to think of a more footgun-y cryptographic tool than the one that: * defaults to unauthenticated encryption * buries it
by tptacek 10mo ago
If you mean the OpenSSL CLI, it's hard to think of a more footgun-y cryptographic tool than the one that:
* defaults to unauthenticated encryption
* buries its one authenticated mode
* requires explicit command-line nonces
* defaults to an MD5 KDF
You could probably keep going for another 10 bullets. Never use the OpenSSL CLI for anything other than TLS stuff.
- quotemstr 10mo agoYeah, the OpenSSL CLI sucks. So what's to be done? Sure, we can build a 25519-specific tool with a less footgun-y interface. Fine, whatever, for that one use case. Or we can build an alternative OpenSSL CLI that explodes OpenSSL and its numerous useful features in a general way and helps fix lots of use cases.
- tptacek 10mo agoNothing is to be done. Just don't use the OpenSSL CLI. It's a deeply cursed concept for a tool!
- coppsilgold 10mo agoYou can use ssh-keygen for signing and verifying signatures. You can also use age[1] to encrypt payloads targeting ssh public keys. And decrypt using ssh private keys. [1] <https://github.com/FiloSottile/age https://github.com/FiloSottile/age>
- why-o-why 10mo agoAre you confusing the open openSSL library with the CLI? Absolutely none of this is true when used as a signing tool on the CLI. Seems like you just needed to rant, rather than answer my question. Which is fine: I do it to, but I was legit asking a question that you ignored and you seem to know about openSSL?