you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

Rustls can already replace OpenSSL, but maybe that's not serious enough for you. Sure, the ring backend embeds assembly for the crypto operations, but that's the point:

You can have a safe interface for interacting with potentially unsafe code. Do all of the memory allocation and string manipulation stuff in Rust and call out to crypto in assembly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's not serious enough for me. It will become serious if it actually replaces openssl, or at least actually is in use by any significant numbers. Until then, it's a project that can potentially maybe sometimes be used by someone maybe, which by definition isn't serious. Like any other project, it needs time under pressure, it needs to mature with use, be supported for some time, accept patches and changes, and sustain constant prodding by people who would like to break your stuff.
    OpenSSL is a standard for almost 3 decades, Rustls is cautiously maybe being pushed in experimental branches.
    It's like that with everything Rust related really. We are at a phase where enthusiasts enthusiastically trying to convince someone to consider their new toy, which means we can't really compare it with decades old projects that were scrutinized and stress-tested by millions of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    OpenSSL has proven itself to be security issue riddled, unmaintainable, bloated. It's only lasted so long because people had the impression it was good, but it has proven itself unreliable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Paraphrasing, there are only two types of important projects, security issue riddled, unmaintainable, bloated ones, and those that nobody uses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments