Talks to Watch

LibreSSL with Bob Beck

25K views · May 17, 2014 · 1:05:45 · 6 HN recommenders · 19 mentions · discussed 2014–2025

Bob Beck of OpenBSD describes the first month of LibreSSL, the fork aimed at cleaning up OpenSSL, including oddities found in the code base and why it was cleaned rather than audited cryptographically.

Why Hacker News points people here: Frequently linked as an entertaining and alarming account of OpenSSL code quality and why the fork happened.

“The entire talk is amazing, even 7 years later.”HN comment, 2021

What Hacker News said 19

Strongly recommendsmrweaselOct 2021

“The entire talk is amazing, even 7 years later.”

Talk on LibreSSL's first 30 days

Full comment

Bob Beck also covers this in his talk about the first 30 days of libreSSL. The entire talk is amazing, even 7 years later. this video

in “OpenBSD: How it all started” · view on HN
RecommendsprotomythMay 2014

“The LibreSSL talk is funny and scary.”

Funny and scary LibreSSL talk

Full comment

The LibreSSL talk is funny and scary. [watch the other version one this video so you can hear the other people and see the end]

RecommendslomnakkusMay 2014

“please see this talk”

Shows what LibreSSL is about: fixing OpenSSL problems

Full comment

"just fixing the problems in openssl." That's what libressl is about. If you're in any doubt, please see this talk: this video

in “OpenSSL, OpenSSH and NTP to receive support from Core Infrastructure Initiative” · view on HN
RecommendsteamhappyOct 2015

“I recommend you watch”

Overview of what is wrong with OpenSSL

Full comment

It does a lot of things it really shouldn't be doing. I recommend you watch Bob Beck's talk about LibreSSL[1] (Ted's there too). [1]: this video

RecommendsBayartNov 2021

“talk from Bob Beck of OpenBSD on pruning OpenSSL”

Hilarious talk on pruning OpenSSL

Full comment

The immediate effect of Heartbleed was the OpenBSD folk [1] and Google [2] forking OpenSSL. There's a talk from Bob Beck of OpenBSD on pruning OpenSSL, it's pretty hilarious [3]. In that case open source was at least able to react appropriately, even if it didn't act preemptively. [1]: link [2]: link [3]: this video

in “U.S. telecoms are going to start physically removing Huawei gear” · view on HN
Recommendsg0xA52A2AFeb 2023

“around the 10 minute mark he recounts fixing issues in the memory allocator which had been reported 4 years prior”

Recounts fixing long-ignored OpenSSL allocator issues

Full comment

This exemplifies one of the key reasons OpenBSD forked OpenSSL. For those who haven't seen it I'd recommend this presentation from Bob Beck[1], around the 10 minute mark he recounts fixing issues in the memory allocator which had been reported 4 years prior. Seems there's still a similar backlog sitting behind embargoes? [1] this video

in “OpenSSL Security Advisory [7th February 2023]” · view on HN
Cites itclarryMay 2014

“Just in case someone missed it”

Video of the LibreSSL talk accompanying the slides

Full comment

Just in case someone missed it, here's video of the libressl talk to go with the linked slide(s). this video

in “OpenSSL, OpenSSH and NTP to receive support from Core Infrastructure Initiative” · view on HN
Cites itforgottenpassMay 2014

“An OpenBSD guy gave a talk a few weeks back”

OpenBSD developer explains why OpenSSL was beyond saving

Full comment

I'd much rather have 1 really really good ssl library that everyone uses instead of 2 so-so ones. That's reasonable, but those aren't the options at play here. Not only because GnuTLS is already a thing, but the chances of OpenSSL becoming really really good are questionable. An OpenBSD guy gave a talk a few weeks back where he said that Heartbleed wasn't the reason for the split, it was the reason for digging into the code and realizing that OpenSSL under current leadership isn't capable of being a really really good option. this video

in “OpenSSL, OpenSSH and NTP to receive support from Core Infrastructure Initiative” · view on HN
Cites itsimula67May 2014

“they are not reviewing the cryptography code, merely cleaning up the programming”

Talk admits cleanup, not cryptographic review, so far

Full comment

From Beck's talk[1] they are not reviewing the cryptography code, merely cleaning up the programming. They admit they don't yet have cryptography experts reviewing if the algorithms/implementations are doing what they are supposed to be doing and that they are in fact secure. [1] this video

in “OpenSSL, OpenSSH and NTP to receive support from Core Infrastructure Initiative” · view on HN
Cites itprotomythMay 2014

“he explains why nobody looked (or admitted they looked)”

Explains why nobody looked at the unsafe OpenSSL code

Full comment

> Maybe I'm naieve, but I think perhaps the problems with OpenSSL had come to light a little bit sooner if all dangerous code had clearly been marked 'unsafe'. After listening to Bob Beck's talk[1], I think people did know how unsafe that code was but no one wanted to take a shot at fixing it until it all went bad. At 2:12 into the video (the Jon Snow slide), he explains why nobody looked (or admitted they looked)[2]. Code can be so bad in any language to discourage people from even attempting to figure out how it works. 1) this video 2) quotes "Why did WE not look" & "It is your parents talking about how you got made horrible"

Cites itprotomythMay 2016

“LibrSSL first 30 days along with quite a lot of other oddities.”

LibreSSL first 30 days includes oddities and comments

Full comment

I meant my comment in the same spirit as a Southerner means "Bless your heart". I do believe Ted Unagnt's comment is included in the this video LibrSSL first 30 days along with quite a lot of other oddities.

in “Why OpenBSD Is Important to Me” · view on HN
Cites itgbrown_Oct 2016

“The reason for the fork was not Heartbleed itself but the crazy memory allocation done behind the scenes.”

Fork motivated by memory allocation, not Heartbleed itself

Full comment

> it was created as a direct response to Heartbleed The reason for the fork was not Heartbleed itself but the crazy memory allocation done behind the scenes. this video

Cites itprotomythMar 2018

“had a good overview of what was thought of OpenSSL”

Overview of how OpenSSL was regarded

Full comment

Bob Beck during his LibreSSL talk had a good overview of what was thought of OpenSSL this video "we are all guilty"

in “Why Is SQLite Coded in C? (2017)” · view on HN
Cites itprotomythJul 2020

“the explanation from the person in the crowd is something of a horror story”

Horror story from audience about big-endian support

Full comment

Big-endian Support for AMD64 - the explanation from the person in the crowd is something of a horror story that I think a lot of have witnessed in various forms. this video

in “What changed in OpenSSL after heartbleed” · view on HN
Cites itprotomythMay 2021

“Bob Beck pointed that out in his LibreSSL talk”

Notes OpenSSL was seen as bad code before Heartbleed

Full comment

I don't think anyone thought OpenSSL was good code even before Heartbleed. Bob Beck pointed that out in his LibreSSL talk this video

in “Replacements for existing software written in Rust” · view on HN
Cites ite12eJun 2022

“(the first 30 days)”

Example of a terrible huge C codebase

Full comment

> I've never seen a terrible huge C codebase libssl/openssl (before the rewrite/fixes especially)? Maybe doesn't qualify as huge? See eg: this video "LibreSSL with Bob Beck" (the first 30 days)

in “Important PostgreSQL 14 update to avoid silent corruption of indexes” · view on HN
Cites itshagieDec 2025
Full comment

> And Comic Sans for letters sent to friends finishing design school, obviously. ... and libressl. link (and the talk - this video )

in “Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri” · view on HN
Criticalx0x0Jun 2014

“letting serious security issues sit in their bug tracker for years on end”

Full comment

in the sense that it is utterly wrong, I suppose so... in reality, openssl appears to be a $1mm+/year for-profit fips consulting business [1] that appears to not care much about security, letting serious security issues sit in their bug tracker for years on end [1] this video

in “New Bug Found in Widely Used OpenSSL Encryption” · view on HN
Criticalx0x0Jul 2014

“They let critical security bugs sit in their queue for 4 years while they sat on them [1].”

Full comment

to be blunt: openssl is a festering heap maintained by a bunch of hacks. They let critical security bugs sit in their queue for 4 years while they sat on them [1]. They also actively worked to disable automated testing with malloc tooling; while obviously that won't catch all bugs, every bit helps. Finally, it contained rafts of code that, bluntly, my boss would probably fire me for checking in. [1] this video