4 ms·

Probably none. Windows has its own CSP library which is a little more convenient in a win32 context than OpenSSL or anything POSIX TBH. I think they're doing th

by bananas 12y ago

Probably none. Windows has its own CSP library which is a little more convenient in a win32 context than OpenSSL or anything POSIX TBH. I think they're doing the right thing here.

abcd_f 12y ago
There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Moreover, there is a lot of Windows projects that are written in inherently portable way and using OpenSSL API is the most natural choice for them. If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers.
- bananas 12y ago
  Well I disagree. Whilst it's a natural choice for portability, when you port to a proprietary platform such as windows you lose a lot of the support and portability guarantees that POSIX gives you and the calling conventions and standards of many libraries. At this point it's advisable to pick a holistic 3rd party abstraction over this such as something right from APR to Qt that will abstract the platform specific implementation away. Some people write a lot of stuff plugged into Win32 without considering the CSPs and pull in OpenSSL without thought. Their funeral. As my father said: "when in France, talk French or hire a translator".
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    This is all great, but the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea. We can debate finer nuances of proper abstraction to the death, but it doesn't move a needle for people who already have OpenSSL dependencies in their code.
    - whatevsbro 12y ago
      > the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea The LibreSSL guys are not yanking anything out of Windows, they're just providing an alternative to OpenSSL, for all the world to use, for free. They're not under any obligation to support Windows, no matter how bad you want them to.
      - huhtenberg 12y ago
        I don't expect them to support Windows, you misunderstand the whole concern. The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time. This is not a start of a beautiful friendship. Throw in a bit of crowd lynching (to the tune of "OpenBSD is showing OpenSSL how to do security right") and we can end up with OpenSSL devs showing a finger and throwing in a towel. At best, we'll have to related SSL implementations, devs of which don't really talk to each other. That's the issue.
        Sanddancer 12y ago
        People have been saying that OpenSSL has been of poor quality [1], that the documentation is bad [2], and the developers don't really listen [3] for years. Heartbleed was just the straw that broke the camel's back. OpenSSL really was one of those pieces of software that was Just Good Enough that people tolerated it, but at the same time, filled them with a desire to punch kittens whenever they had to code with it. [1] https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-openssl/index.html http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-opens... [3] http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-October/003409.html http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-Octob...
        CHY872 12y ago
        The devs can probably at least be mature enough to use each others code where it is compatible. More to the point, there's really only a couple of full time OpenSSL devs, and the others are more contributors, for whom I'd imagine switching to a better laid out, less buggy, less spaghetti-codey, more practical implementation would be an advantage.
    - akira2501 12y ago
      For right now, it does not matter. Their goal is to fix the project from a security point of view, and it would be impossible if they tied their hands with that during the course of development. In the future, you can expect the same deal as OpenSSH, OpenNTPD and all the other OpenBSD software that _eventually_ gets ported to other architectures when it reaches a point of stability and safety that it makes sense to do so.
      - papaf 12y ago
        Portable OpenNTPD seems to have died: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD I'm sure LibreSSL won't have that problem but I thought it worthwhile pointing out that support for other OSes is not guaranteed.
        copergi 12y ago
        >Portable OpenNTPD seems to have died: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD If you follow that through the series of links, you find that it is just an assumption based on one guy who didn't know the project existed thinking unchanged = unmaintained.
        papaf 12y ago
        Are you sure? There hasn't been a release for 8 years. I followed the links a while ago after hitting an intialization failure bug that leaves Linux boxes with the incorrect date. I found that neither Arch Linux or Redhat consider OpenNTPD to be supported on Linux. Edit: a better link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430143 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430143
        copergi 12y ago
        11/11/2009 is not 8 years ago. That "better link" is exactly what I was referring to.
    - rurounijones 12y ago
      No one is yanking OpenSSL, this is a fork. OpenSSL is still available and developed and windows apps can continue using it. If windows (and any other non-OpenBSD OS to be honest) people just HAVE to have LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL on their OS then the donation link is at the bottom of the page.
- DCKing 12y ago
  Windows is just a little too different for them to make a proper purge of the project right now. Having Windows support is just a much larger cross-cutting concern than a Unix-like OS, which appears to be the only category of operating system they're currently supporting. Windows will probably get a port some time later on. Remember that OpenSSH's libssh also has Windows support. It's just not something that fits in their current short term goals of fixing up OpenSSL (I like the term flensing they're using).
  - Flenser 12y ago
    > I like the term flensing they're using Indeed!
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  If that Windows software doesn't need SSL, then it should just use NaCl anyway.
- mariuolo 12y ago
  > If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers. Can you elaborate on that? I thought StartSSL was a certification authority.
- a3n 12y ago
  > There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL And those projects can upgrade to the heartbleed-patched version of OpenSSL and keep going. If LibreSSL eventually makes it to Windows, they can switch. OpenBSD can't do everything at once.
- teacup50 12y ago
  > There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Yes, and most of it is awful because they shouldn't. I hate manually configuring SSL certificates for OpenSSL-using Windows software. Write a socket transport portability layer. It's not that hard, and you almost certainly need one anyway.
orthecreedence 12y ago
Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!" I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin. The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new version, let's at least try to hit the major platforms.
- asddubs 12y ago
  you can write a layer that says "if windows, use openssl, else use libreSSL"
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  I imagine that's what the supported option is going to be. Given that the OpenSSH documentation explicitly lists Cygwin as the way to run it for windows, similar will probably happen for LibreSSL. The OpenBSD team has always had another team handle porting of their libraries, and they do a pretty good job of it.
- stuaxo 12y ago
  It's probably easier to cut the code right down to size now, then re-add compatibility once the base is solid. Given how knarly build systems can be, then only supporting modern versions of the same could help remove a lot of cruft.
- AlexMeesters 12y ago
  Its not a replacement for OpenSSL, OpenSSL will continue to exists as it is, but in a while when libressl is stable enough you can choose on or the other. Its just a fork.

by bananas 12y ago

Probably none. Windows has its own CSP library which is a little more convenient in a win32 context than OpenSSL or anything POSIX TBH. I think they're doing the right thing here.

abcd_f 12y ago

There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Moreover, there is a lot of Windows projects that are written in inherently portable way and using OpenSSL API is the most natural choice for them. If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers.

bananas 12y ago
Well I disagree. Whilst it's a natural choice for portability, when you port to a proprietary platform such as windows you lose a lot of the support and portability guarantees that POSIX gives you and the calling conventions and standards of many libraries. At this point it's advisable to pick a holistic 3rd party abstraction over this such as something right from APR to Qt that will abstract the platform specific implementation away. Some people write a lot of stuff plugged into Win32 without considering the CSPs and pull in OpenSSL without thought. Their funeral. As my father said: "when in France, talk French or hire a translator".
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  This is all great, but the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea. We can debate finer nuances of proper abstraction to the death, but it doesn't move a needle for people who already have OpenSSL dependencies in their code.
  - whatevsbro 12y ago
    > the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea The LibreSSL guys are not yanking anything out of Windows, they're just providing an alternative to OpenSSL, for all the world to use, for free. They're not under any obligation to support Windows, no matter how bad you want them to.
    - huhtenberg 12y ago
      I don't expect them to support Windows, you misunderstand the whole concern. The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time. This is not a start of a beautiful friendship. Throw in a bit of crowd lynching (to the tune of "OpenBSD is showing OpenSSL how to do security right") and we can end up with OpenSSL devs showing a finger and throwing in a towel. At best, we'll have to related SSL implementations, devs of which don't really talk to each other. That's the issue.
      - Sanddancer 12y ago
        People have been saying that OpenSSL has been of poor quality [1], that the documentation is bad [2], and the developers don't really listen [3] for years. Heartbleed was just the straw that broke the camel's back. OpenSSL really was one of those pieces of software that was Just Good Enough that people tolerated it, but at the same time, filled them with a desire to punch kittens whenever they had to code with it. [1] https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-openssl/index.html http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-opens... [3] http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-October/003409.html http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-Octob...
      - CHY872 12y ago
        The devs can probably at least be mature enough to use each others code where it is compatible. More to the point, there's really only a couple of full time OpenSSL devs, and the others are more contributors, for whom I'd imagine switching to a better laid out, less buggy, less spaghetti-codey, more practical implementation would be an advantage.
  - akira2501 12y ago
    For right now, it does not matter. Their goal is to fix the project from a security point of view, and it would be impossible if they tied their hands with that during the course of development. In the future, you can expect the same deal as OpenSSH, OpenNTPD and all the other OpenBSD software that _eventually_ gets ported to other architectures when it reaches a point of stability and safety that it makes sense to do so.
    - papaf 12y ago
      Portable OpenNTPD seems to have died: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD I'm sure LibreSSL won't have that problem but I thought it worthwhile pointing out that support for other OSes is not guaranteed.
      - copergi 12y ago
        >Portable OpenNTPD seems to have died: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD If you follow that through the series of links, you find that it is just an assumption based on one guy who didn't know the project existed thinking unchanged = unmaintained.
        papaf 12y ago
        Are you sure? There hasn't been a release for 8 years. I followed the links a while ago after hitting an intialization failure bug that leaves Linux boxes with the incorrect date. I found that neither Arch Linux or Redhat consider OpenNTPD to be supported on Linux. Edit: a better link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430143 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430143
        copergi 12y ago
        11/11/2009 is not 8 years ago. That "better link" is exactly what I was referring to.
  - rurounijones 12y ago
    No one is yanking OpenSSL, this is a fork. OpenSSL is still available and developed and windows apps can continue using it. If windows (and any other non-OpenBSD OS to be honest) people just HAVE to have LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL on their OS then the donation link is at the bottom of the page.
DCKing 12y ago
Windows is just a little too different for them to make a proper purge of the project right now. Having Windows support is just a much larger cross-cutting concern than a Unix-like OS, which appears to be the only category of operating system they're currently supporting. Windows will probably get a port some time later on. Remember that OpenSSH's libssh also has Windows support. It's just not something that fits in their current short term goals of fixing up OpenSSL (I like the term flensing they're using).
- Flenser 12y ago
  > I like the term flensing they're using Indeed!
higherpurpose 12y ago
If that Windows software doesn't need SSL, then it should just use NaCl anyway.
mariuolo 12y ago
> If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers. Can you elaborate on that? I thought StartSSL was a certification authority.
a3n 12y ago
> There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL And those projects can upgrade to the heartbleed-patched version of OpenSSL and keep going. If LibreSSL eventually makes it to Windows, they can switch. OpenBSD can't do everything at once.
teacup50 12y ago
> There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Yes, and most of it is awful because they shouldn't. I hate manually configuring SSL certificates for OpenSSL-using Windows software. Write a socket transport portability layer. It's not that hard, and you almost certainly need one anyway.

orthecreedence 12y ago

Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!" I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin. The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new version, let's at least try to hit the major platforms.

asddubs 12y ago
you can write a layer that says "if windows, use openssl, else use libreSSL"
Sanddancer 12y ago
I imagine that's what the supported option is going to be. Given that the OpenSSH documentation explicitly lists Cygwin as the way to run it for windows, similar will probably happen for LibreSSL. The OpenBSD team has always had another team handle porting of their libraries, and they do a pretty good job of it.
stuaxo 12y ago
It's probably easier to cut the code right down to size now, then re-add compatibility once the base is solid. Given how knarly build systems can be, then only supporting modern versions of the same could help remove a lot of cruft.
AlexMeesters 12y ago
Its not a replacement for OpenSSL, OpenSSL will continue to exists as it is, but in a while when libressl is stable enough you can choose on or the other. Its just a fork.