3 ms·
That's kind of missing the point though. It would be relatively easy to define an interface that is simple to use and allows implementing 90% of the use cases w
by nhaehnle 13y ago
That's kind of missing the point though. It would be relatively easy to define an interface that is simple to use and allows implementing 90% of the use cases with rather low danger of shooting yourself in the foot. We know that this is possible because there are libraries out there that do it.
This whole thread is about OpenSSL somehow failing to do that, despite being called out on it for years.
- tptacek 13y agoI don't understand. What part of TLS are you calling "simple"?
- nhaehnle 13y agoThe interface between an application that wants to communicate using TLS and perform related tasks and a library that implements TLS can and should be simple - at least for the 90% of common use cases. The whole point of the original article is that the interface of OpenSSL is horrible and undocumented. Consider how the article's author was not originally interested in looking at the internals of OpenSSL. All they wanted was a decent and documented interface for dealing with certificates; if OpenSSL had exposed such an interface, they would never even have looked at the source code of its internals.
- acqq 13y agoIt's open source, everybody can decide to invest his own time to do the fixes. However, the functionality openssl provides is much bigger than most of the commenters can imagine. It's not easy at all.