News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by doomrobo on Sunday December 03, 2023 @12:13PM (#38508657)
Clarification: this still has dependencies. For example, it requires one of "OpenSSL (versions 1.0.2, 1.1.1 and 3.0.x), LibreSSL, BoringSSL, AWS-LC, and the Apple Common Crypto framework to perform the underlying cryptographic operations"
Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by t3rra on Sunday December 03, 2023 @02:46PM (#38510075)
it says "it supports" but not "it requires" in README
Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by zamadatix on Sunday December 03, 2023 @04:35PM (#38510994)
It seems to support multiple options but requires you pick at least one of them. https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/blob/main/docs/BUILD.md#build...

AWS-LC is the recommended option of the supported choices, there doesn't seem to be a "built-in" type choice.

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by jedisct1 on Sunday December 03, 2023 @12:17PM (#38508696)
S2N is great, clean, actively maintained, and even has experimental support for post-quantum key exchange (compatible with BoringSSL and the Zig standard library).

Other very nice TLS implementations in C/C++:

- Facebook Fizz: https://github.com/facebookincubator/fizz

- PicoTLS: https://github.com/h2o/picotls

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by westurner on Sunday December 03, 2023 @02:39PM (#38510025)
"Continuous formal verification of Amazon s2n" (2018) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96142-2_...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2686812922904040715...

But formal methods (and TLA+ for distributed computation) don't eliminate side channels.

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by quotemstr on Sunday December 03, 2023 @05:00PM (#38511175)
> But formal methods (and TLA+ for distributed computation) don't eliminate side channels.

True, but they eliminate whole classes of attack. I'm normally aghast at people writing new code in plain C, but formally verified plain C counts as a whole other and better paradigm to me.

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by rewmie on Monday December 04, 2023 @02:29AM (#38514579)
> I'm normally aghast at people writing new code in plain C,

Why?

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by PhilipRoman on Sunday December 03, 2023 @07:09PM (#38512157)
There have been some attempts at formally verifying lack of timing attacks (to the extent allowed by hardware). This is the one I know the most about: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3314221.3314605 but there are likely others
Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by folmar on Sunday December 03, 2023 @08:35PM (#38512740)
Also in around side channel topic for example:

E. Prouff and M. Rivain, Masking against Side-Channel Attacks: A Formal Security Proof, EUROCRYPT 2013, LNCS 7881

S. Dziembowski and K. Pietrzak, "Leakage-Resilient Cryptography, 10.1109/FOCS.2008.56.

Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by westurner on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @01:17AM (#38527673)
Re:S2n-TLS – A C99 implementation of the TLS/SSL protocol by westurner on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @01:14AM (#38527663)