4 ms·

We need something with TLS in the name for the next one so people stop getting confused.

by ospray 8mo ago

magicalhippo 8mo ago
MbedTLS[1] got your back! [1]: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/ https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/
- anthk 8mo ago
  That's being used by Dillo and it's working really well even on legacy computers.
weinzierl 8mo ago
rustls is there. It has TLS in the name, it is good and there is a C FFI wrapper.
- gspr 8mo ago
  Rustls still outsources cryptographic primitives. I believe the currently supported providers of those are… drumroll… AWS-LC and Ring. The latter is a fork of BoringSSL. The article describes AWS-LC and BoringSSL as "Googled and Amazoned to death; they don't care about anyone but their own use cases". The state of things sucks :-(
  - koakuma-chan 8mo ago
    there is https://github.com/RustCrypto/rustls-rustcrypto https://github.com/RustCrypto/rustls-rustcrypto fwiw
    - gspr 8mo ago
      It's a great effort, but it's far from usable: > USE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK! DO NOT USE THIS IN PRODUCTION
  - PunchyHamster 8mo ago
    The author also doesn't specify what that even means and what problems it causes
  - tialaramex 8mo ago
    The primitives aren't a problem. You can't write them in any vaguely modern high level language. And when I say "High level" I mean that the way K&R does when they describe their new C programming language as high level. The reason you can't write cryptographic primitives in a high level language is that optimising compilers love clever tricks which offer data dependent performance, across every layer of their design - but in cryptography we want constant execution time regardless of either the plaintext or keys used. The problem with OpenSSL isn't these cryptographic primitives, that's why you will see basically the same primitives re-used in lots of different places. It's like finding out that the guy who was just arrested for murder also eats pizza. Yeah, people do that. The problem wasn't the pizza, it was the murder. OpenSSL's implementation of the AES cipher isn't broken, the problem is elsewhere.
  - LoganDark 8mo ago
    What? Ring is not even close to a fork of BoringSSL; it merely borrows subroutines from BoringSSL.
    - gspr 8mo ago
      Ok, maybe not a fork outright. But the project description says: Most of the C and assembly language code in ring comes from BoringSSL.
      - toast0 8mo ago
        That's the proper way to use OpenSSL and derivatives. Their C and assembly code for crypto primatives is good. Protocol code and x.509 certficate handling will probably be better written in another language.
  - yencabulator 8mo ago
    You might like https://github.com/ctz/graviola/ https://github.com/ctz/graviola/ Also, even if rustls is using aws-lc-rs, you still get the TLS parts from the rustls project, and aws-lc-rs is just lower-level crypto. That means there's less places for Amazon to say no; they either implement an algorithm or don't.
- koakuma-chan 8mo ago
  rustls doesn't have its own implementation of cryptography, you have to choose a provider like openssl or aws lc
  - SAI_Peregrinus 8mo ago
    Or rustcrypto. Rustls is a TLS layer that can wrap any cryptography layer providing the necessary primitives.
  - brianpane 8mo ago
    There is a rustls side project called Graviola that's building a fast crypto provider in Rust+ASM. It's taken an interesting approach: starting with an assembly library that's been formally proven correct, and then programmatically translating that into Rust with inline assembly that's easy to build with Rust tooling.
- dwedge 8mo ago
  A c wrapper to rust feels like we've gone full circle
  - pocksuppet 8mo ago
    That would be amazing and really cement the proven value of Rust.
    - tialaramex 8mo ago
      There's even a project for a deliberately OpenSSL drop-in compatible Rustls backed library. It is intended for specific projects because OpenSSL is sprawling and they don't implement most if it, but in principle if you use the same parts of OpenSSL your C likely works with this safer + faster alternative today, why not recommend it to your users. https://github.com/rustls/rustls-openssl-compat https://github.com/rustls/rustls-openssl-compat
zephen 8mo ago
You're obviously looking for lastLs.
account42 8mo ago
But then how will we spot the pedants.

We need something with TLS in the name for the next one so people stop getting confused.

by ospray 8mo ago

We need something with TLS in the name for the next one so people stop getting confused.

MbedTLS[1] got your back! [1]: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/ https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/

anthk 8mo ago
That's being used by Dillo and it's working really well even on legacy computers.

weinzierl 8mo ago

rustls is there. It has TLS in the name, it is good and there is a C FFI wrapper.

gspr 8mo ago
Rustls still outsources cryptographic primitives. I believe the currently supported providers of those are… drumroll… AWS-LC and Ring. The latter is a fork of BoringSSL. The article describes AWS-LC and BoringSSL as "Googled and Amazoned to death; they don't care about anyone but their own use cases". The state of things sucks :-(
- koakuma-chan 8mo ago
  there is https://github.com/RustCrypto/rustls-rustcrypto https://github.com/RustCrypto/rustls-rustcrypto fwiw
  - gspr 8mo ago
    It's a great effort, but it's far from usable: > USE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK! DO NOT USE THIS IN PRODUCTION
- PunchyHamster 8mo ago
  The author also doesn't specify what that even means and what problems it causes
- tialaramex 8mo ago
  The primitives aren't a problem. You can't write them in any vaguely modern high level language. And when I say "High level" I mean that the way K&R does when they describe their new C programming language as high level. The reason you can't write cryptographic primitives in a high level language is that optimising compilers love clever tricks which offer data dependent performance, across every layer of their design - but in cryptography we want constant execution time regardless of either the plaintext or keys used. The problem with OpenSSL isn't these cryptographic primitives, that's why you will see basically the same primitives re-used in lots of different places. It's like finding out that the guy who was just arrested for murder also eats pizza. Yeah, people do that. The problem wasn't the pizza, it was the murder. OpenSSL's implementation of the AES cipher isn't broken, the problem is elsewhere.
- LoganDark 8mo ago
  What? Ring is not even close to a fork of BoringSSL; it merely borrows subroutines from BoringSSL.
  - gspr 8mo ago
    Ok, maybe not a fork outright. But the project description says: Most of the C and assembly language code in ring comes from BoringSSL.
    - toast0 8mo ago
      That's the proper way to use OpenSSL and derivatives. Their C and assembly code for crypto primatives is good. Protocol code and x.509 certficate handling will probably be better written in another language.
- yencabulator 8mo ago
  You might like https://github.com/ctz/graviola/ https://github.com/ctz/graviola/ Also, even if rustls is using aws-lc-rs, you still get the TLS parts from the rustls project, and aws-lc-rs is just lower-level crypto. That means there's less places for Amazon to say no; they either implement an algorithm or don't.
koakuma-chan 8mo ago
rustls doesn't have its own implementation of cryptography, you have to choose a provider like openssl or aws lc
- SAI_Peregrinus 8mo ago
  Or rustcrypto. Rustls is a TLS layer that can wrap any cryptography layer providing the necessary primitives.
- brianpane 8mo ago
  There is a rustls side project called Graviola that's building a fast crypto provider in Rust+ASM. It's taken an interesting approach: starting with an assembly library that's been formally proven correct, and then programmatically translating that into Rust with inline assembly that's easy to build with Rust tooling.
dwedge 8mo ago
A c wrapper to rust feels like we've gone full circle
- pocksuppet 8mo ago
  That would be amazing and really cement the proven value of Rust.
  - tialaramex 8mo ago
    There's even a project for a deliberately OpenSSL drop-in compatible Rustls backed library. It is intended for specific projects because OpenSSL is sprawling and they don't implement most if it, but in principle if you use the same parts of OpenSSL your C likely works with this safer + faster alternative today, why not recommend it to your users. https://github.com/rustls/rustls-openssl-compat https://github.com/rustls/rustls-openssl-compat

zephen 8mo ago

You're obviously looking for lastLs.

account42 8mo ago

But then how will we spot the pedants.