OpenSSL Security Advisory - 26 Sep 2016

Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory - 26 Sep 2016 by eis on Monday September 26, 2016 @09:34AM (#12581657)

I am not volunteering because while being fluent in C, I am not very knowledgeable in the realm of crypto. I'd be stupid to do otherwise. I can still point out that there is a big need for such a project.

This is a piece of software that is so core to our computer ecosystem that I am sure plenty of companies would contribute financially and with developer time. Heck, if this couldn't get enough funding for at least 5 fulltime devs plus external audits then we're in a sad state of an ecosystem. IMHO this actually should receive public funding. It would be more useful than many other things that get public funds.

[ Parent | on HN ]

[dead]

Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory - 26 Sep 2016 by eis on Monday September 26, 2016 @10:18AM (#12581970)

Sigh. Please improve your reading comprehension. I didn't "shit on the LibreSSL developers". Anyways, you sound not like someone one can have a sensible conversation with. So I wont be replying further.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory - 26 Sep 2016 by omginternets on Monday September 26, 2016 @10:35AM (#12582140)

Don't worry, the rest of us get it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OpenSSL Security Advisory - 26 Sep 2016 by OrpheanBeholder on Monday September 26, 2016 @12:11PM (#12583037)

Okay, let's have a sensible conversation about your completely idle suggestion to create a new library in some other language, that would have to maintain compatibility with the OpenSSL API otherwise no one will use it, or rewrite everything that currently uses OpenSSL.

To me your "LibreSSL is no such thing" came across as dismissing the efforts of LibreSSL, even though it's not vunerable to this latest one, because it doesn't use Erlang.

[ Parent | on HN ]