Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Google Is Maintaining A "BoringSSL" Fork Of OpenSSL

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,093

    Default Google Is Maintaining A "BoringSSL" Fork Of OpenSSL

    Phoronix: Google Is Maintaining A "BoringSSL" Fork Of OpenSSL

    A Google engineer has went public on Google's fork of OpenSSL that is tentatively dubbed BoringSSL...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTcyNjM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    11

    Default

    What's wrong with LibreSSL? Do we really need another Wayland/Mir scenario?

    I sincerely hope that "BoringSSL" only becomes a Google-specific library that is used on Google's servers and mobile phones and nowhere else. I was hoping LibreSSL would be enough but no! We need more forks, one fork for every multi-million dollar company. That is to ensure the fragmentation of the open soruce community!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    100

    Default

    LibreSSL was also unnecessary.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    61

    Default

    libressl is a long time from being ready and will be bsd-only until it is ported. Also libressl is api compatible with openssl, boringssl doesn't maintain compatibility.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by board View Post
    What's wrong with LibreSSL? Do we really need another Wayland/Mir scenario?
    Read his blog. He stated that they have been rebasing OpenSSL with their 70+ patches for a long time (before LibreSSL). They reached a point where such scenario is feasible no more for them and decided to fork and share their things with you.
    They don't force you to use it, but they can't use OpenSSL with their projects.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Why does everybody forget about NSS...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magika View Post
    They don't force you to use it, but they can't use OpenSSL with their projects.
    And since Google has alot users linked to their web services it pretty much means they're forcing other projects to use it as well and then at some point they will use only google tech.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Filiprino View Post
    LibreSSL was also unnecessary.
    Not true, but keep dreaming.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vadix View Post
    Why does everybody forget about NSS...
    Besides the fact it has a completely different API and so little software has support for it? The license too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hajj_3 View Post
    libressl is a long time from being ready and will be bsd-only until it is ported. Also libressl is api compatible with openssl, boringssl doesn't maintain compatibility.
    The word "ready" does not seem to mean what you think it does. It is being used now. The base code is intentionally OpenBSD-only to keep it very lean and clean. The last part doesn't make sense with regard to the question being answered. BoringSSL would be an issue if it was used elsewhere.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •