[cryptography] Just how bad is OpenSSL ?
ben at links.org
Tue Oct 30 10:12:41 EDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, John Case <case at sdf.org> wrote:
>> Apparently you think the best way to get a secure platform is to apply
>> pressure through pointless security standards. I'd suggest your
>> efforts might be better spent supplying patches instead. Or, y'know,
>> talking to the authors of the s/w in question. You never know, they
>> might care.
> Ah, OK. My bad.
> I've tried supplying patches and filing bug report/enhancement requests.
> Here was a gentle patch for spelling corrections in a README -
> rejected. http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2401.
AFAICS that is not rejected, it is ignored. There's a difference.
Also, your patch appears to be reversed. Or your spelling is terrible :-)
> Here was a patch for Xcode awareness - rejected (is it fair to say
> when its sites for years without acknowledgement?).
Also not rejected.
Now, I agree that having patches ignored isn't so great either, but
the problem is:
* RT doesn't actually work, the guy who allegedly maintains our
infrastructure doesn't, and the team can't agree what to do about it
(not that its tried very hard).
* OpenSSL is mostly maintained by volunteers, who may not have felt
particularly inspired by your patches, or may just have missed them.
* When people are paid, they're generally paid to do specific things,
not to trawl through RT (if they even could) looking for patches to
adopt. I'm sure someone could pay for that if they want to, though.
* CVS is a shit tool, too, making it hard to deal with patches - we've
even agreed as a team to move off it, but see above about
> I can't locate a bug report on the use of the uninitialized data.
> Perhaps I had the discussion on the developer's mailing list (I know
> I'm not imagining it, so my apologies).
> I am also aware that patches existed for some time for CCM mode, GCM
> mode, and SRP. In the case of GCM, IBM supplied the patches 5 or 10
> years earlier. None were acted upon.
It always amuses me when bigcorp pays to have a patch made, but
somehow manages to fail to understand that the guy applying the patch
has to eat, too. Plus, ISTR the IP situation is none too clear on all
This reminds me of the first attempt to FIPSify OpenSSL, where there
was zero budget for the developer - just money for test labs and the
like ("what do you mean you want money to work on it? I thought it was
> The project does not appear to want outside help. If I am drawing the
> wrong conclusion, please forgive me.
I'll grant you that your very small patches could be considered help,
and it is a little unfortunate they they were ignored, but like I say,
RT is a shit tool, at least as implemented at OpenSSL, as is CVS (I
notice you didn't supply the needed 4 patches, just a single one) and
no-one's paying anyone to pick patches up from it, particularly.
The rest of your "help" appears to be specifying flags you'd like to
be used and expecting us to do the work for you. Which I actually
might, I find that kind of thing therapeutic, but you get my point.
I think the project would welcome help - but it needs to be useful help :-)
More information about the cryptography