2026-01-14 22:43 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@tknarr@mstdn.social 2026-01-15 02:43
@agwa Sounds like someone driving OpenSSL development has seized upon a "magic bullet" pattern and is proceeding to shoot everyone in the foot with it.
-
@a_lex_ander@mastodon.social 2026-01-15 08:05
@agwa The advantage of being an abstraction layer often making it much easier to just get rid of what you don't want. I applaud their efforts to implement parts of their code in Rust, that's a serious no-bullshit approach!
-
@endrift@social.treehouse.systems 2026-01-15 09:08
@agwa oof, this is pretty rough. I'm honestly wondering at what point it makes sense to just roll a whole replacement for OpenSSL in something like Rust. But at the same time, that just makes one more competing library if there isn't actually unifying around a single one. The fact that there are three other commonly used forks listed in the article makes me think it'd be unlikely to actually replace any of them and not just compound the proliferation issue.
-
@agwa@follow.agwa.name 2026-01-15 15:58
@endrift@social.treehouse.systems There are efforts underway. For TLS, people have unified around rustls, which is awesome. Unfortunately there's no clear successor for the crypto part yet; for a while there was momentum behind *ring* (which was incrementally rewriting BoringSSL) but sadly that seems to have stalled.