| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:58:34 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > @rich0. Just a side comment. You said somewhere that maybe apache will |
| 6 |
> > choose openssl and postfix libressl and then we'll be in trouble. No. The |
| 7 |
> > incompatibility is at the abi not api level. So, for example, some struct |
| 8 |
> > size might be different between the two because of internal implementation |
| 9 |
> > details, but both should provide a definition of the same struct in their |
| 10 |
> > header with the same members. ie. apache should compile against either |
| 11 |
> > openssl or libressl and work, you just can't swap out your libssl without |
| 12 |
> > recompiling apache which you could do if you had full api compat. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I agree with this as long as both projects maintain API compatibility. |
| 15 |
> Whether that happens remains to be seen. If openssl adds a new |
| 16 |
> feature and libressl decides that is a "bad feature" or libressl adds |
| 17 |
> a new feature and openssl doesn't have the manpower to keep up, or |
| 18 |
> whatever, then we'll start seeing things break, and then everybody |
| 19 |
> gets to pick sides. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
They are already not API compatible: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
1. LibreSSL added new features and interfaces: |
| 24 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Added_features |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
2. Some old features are removed: |
| 27 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Added_features |
| 28 |
Most notably SSLv3 and MD5 support cancelled, while they are |
| 29 |
indeed not secure, some apps are likely still depend on them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So it is only matter of time |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives