On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:54:28AM -0500, I wrote:
^^
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:44PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 25/03/14 07:03 PM, sven falempin wrote:
my concern of nettle vs openssl is the amount of review and
testing nettle did get compared to something more widely(!)
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:24 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:54:28AM -0500, I wrote:
^^
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:44PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 25/03/14 07:03 PM, sven falempin wrote:
my concern of nettle vs openssl is the amount of review and
Simon,
Don't underestimate the contribution of all the people who take
responsibility for the software that runs as root, or exposed to the
net, on your machines. It's something I have nightmares about.
I do hope that is not true and that you sleep well.
So much better to be rested and clear
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:44PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 25/03/14 07:03 PM, sven falempin wrote:
my concern of nettle vs openssl is the amount of review and
testing nettle did get compared to something more widely(!)
used
something being used a lot != something being good
Absolutely
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:44PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 25/03/14 07:03 PM, sven falempin wrote:
my concern of nettle vs openssl is the amount of review and
testing nettle did get compared to something more widely(!)
used
On 01/04/14 1:45 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:08:44PM -0400, Alex Xu wrote:
On 25/03/14 07:03 PM, sven falempin wrote:
my concern of nettle vs openssl is the amount of review and
testing nettle did get compared
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, /dev/rob0 r...@gmx.co.uk wrote:
a
I can't speak to an actual code audit, but nettle isn't some third-rate
clone. It's a mature, actively developed and (importantly) thoroughly
documented project.
If I were to undertake such an audit however, I would surely
With such superior understanding, shouldn't you be adding OpenSSL support
to dnsmasq yourself? That way you can deal with their byzantine API and the
resulting bugs, and Simon can instead do something actually worthwhile.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Brad Smith b...@comstyle.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 10:45:44AM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
And thus I enthusiastically support other OSes than linux,
other dns servers besides bind, and other crypto libraries
besides openssl.
One named to rule them all
One named to find them
One named to bring them all
And in the darkness
On 01/04/14 19:14, Nathan Dorfman wrote:
With such superior understanding, shouldn't you be adding OpenSSL support
to dnsmasq yourself? That way you can deal with their byzantine API and the
resulting bugs, and Simon can instead do something actually worthwhile.
But don't do that before the
I happen to be in a similar position as Lonnie.
Since we use packages that use OpenSSL (Apache, OpenVPN, wget, Perl
SSLeay), we already ship the openssl libraries and not nettle.
Sorry, forgot to list sshd.
Olaf
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/03/14 14:43, Alex Xu wrote:
I'm writing the Gentoo ebuild for dnsmasq 2.69rc1
(https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504154), and I was
wondering if dnsmasq requires nettle and gmp, or actually
nettle[gmp].
The latter builds nettle
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
On 25/03/14 21:25, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
Is the decision to not support OpenSSL shared libraries a final decision, or
is there a chance you may reconsider ?
The very early DNSSEC code used openSSL, so it's possible. The reason
for
13 matches
Mail list logo
