5K views · May 18, 2014 · 1:05:51 · 3 HN recommenders · 4 mentions · discussed 2014–2022
Bob Beck of OpenBSD gives a BSDCan 2014 talk on the first month of LibreSSL, the OpenSSL fork. He explains why they forked, what they removed, and examples of the problems found in the OpenSSL code base.
Why Hacker News points people here: Recommended as a funny, fascinating tour of how bad the OpenSSL code was and what cleanup looks like.
“There is a fascinating and funny talk by Bob Beck from OpenBSD on the first 30 days after forking OpenSSL.”HN comment, 2020
“Anyone interested in details of LibreSSL development can watch the BSDCan talk at”
Details of LibreSSL development and OpenSSL code problems.
Anyone interested in details of LibreSSL development can watch the BSDCan talk at this video - there really are a LOT of instances of braindamaged code in OpenSSL and a radical repair is pretty much the only thing which will work.
“There is a fascinating and funny talk by Bob Beck from OpenBSD on the first 30 days after forking OpenSSL.”
Funny talk on scary OpenSSL code and what LibreSSL removed.
There is a fascinating and funny talk by Bob Beck from OpenBSD on the first 30 days after forking OpenSSL. One of the things he addresses is the scary code and how is prevents community involvement. He also talks a great deal about all that stuff that's not really relevant anymore and how much they removed from the LibreSSL source code. Apparently the crypto modules are pretty well made according to the OpenBSD developers. LibreSSL: The first 30 days, and what the Future Holds: this video
“Also, an interesting talk”
Talk from BSDCan on LibreSSL's early days.
I'd expect higher quality code review from OpenBSD folks (who maintain LibreSSL), compared to OpenSSL. Also, an interesting talk: LibreSSL: The first 30 days, and what the Future Holds from BSDCan: < this video >
“I am reminded of the libressl - 30 days in report.”
Removing old version support reduces complexity.
I am reminded of the libressl - 30 days in report. this video Removing support for old versions is a simplification of what needs to be considered. It is a reduction of complexity. If someone is running a PHP version that has been EOLed, it is perfectly reasonable to discontinue support for it in a library - even if new features that weren't available in the EOL'ed version haven't been added yet.
