Sorry, this tweet is nonsense. The implementation is in assembly because people complain about crypto performance and to avoid side channels. Code was written by competent people who should implement crypto. Language is not "safe", it's safe against some mistakes, not logic bugs.https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/946252676781748224 …
-
How does this play into the "crypto library monoculture is bad" theory? Clearly there's a market for things that aren't OpenSSL.
The problem with OpenSSL is that it's not (only) a crypto library, it's a kitchen sync of crap mixing low and high level code. Sure, we're better off implementing a PKI and TLS in a safe language, but there isn't a market for more than one or two *good* crypto primitive libs.
-
-
-
Yeah, but all of those are big libs that do lots of stuff. Among them, how many times are the same *primitives* implemented? You usually only need *two* versions: the fast one, and the comprehensible/short one. Within the fast one you need optimized assembly for N architectures.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.