On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Olaf Westrik wrote:
> 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
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 h
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 09/04/14 15:51, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>>
>> My heart bleeds for the openssl folk and openssl derived application users
>> right now. More investment into creating, maintaining and improving
>> core crypto libraries is desperately needed to hol
On 09/04/14 15:51, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> My heart bleeds for the openssl folk and openssl derived application users
> right now. More investment into creating, maintaining and improving
> core crypto libraries is desperately needed to hold our civilization together.
>
+1
Don't underestimate the
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:24 AM, /dev/rob0 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
>> >
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 wide
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
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
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 wrote:
> On 01/04/14 2:02 PM,
On 01/04/14 2:02 PM, Nathan Dorfman wrote:
Maybe OpenSSL is the right choice anyway, I don't know. But, I thought
someone should speak up for nettle :)
speaking up for nettle means nothing when you don't understand the
issue at hand.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous c
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:54 PM, /dev/rob0 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 prefer to have
t
On 01/04/14 1:45 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, /dev/rob0 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 m
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, /dev/rob0 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 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
Ab
On 26/03/14 09:16, Olaf Westrik wrote:
> On 2014-03-25 23:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>
>> I would prefer OpenSSL support.
>>
>> As a developer for a cros
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
Dns
On 26 Mar 2014 05:53, "Albert ARIBAUD" wrote:
>
> Le 26/03/2014 10:16, Olaf Westrik a écrit :
>
>> On 2014-03-25 23:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
Cheers,
Le 26/03/2014 10:16, Olaf Westrik a écrit :
On 2014-03-25 23:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
Cheers,
Simon.
I would prefer OpenSSL support.
As a developer for a cross-compiled x86 open source p
On 2014-03-25 23:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
Cheers,
Simon.
I would prefer OpenSSL support.
As a developer for a cross-compiled x86 open source project (AstLinux) building
and maintaining a
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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 25/03/14 22:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>>
>> 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
On 25/03/14 22:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
>
> 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
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 r
On 25/03/14 05:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
Because it's quote-unquote more secure.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelle
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 the change (in no particular order) was 1) the API is
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> -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 an
-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 nettl
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 with --enable-public-key.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
