[Bug 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716



--- Comment #12 from Stuart D Gathman <stuart@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
This is why cjd thinks we should continue using the embedded nacl library:

Caleb J. Delisle writes in
https://github.com/hyperboria/cjdns/issues/43#issuecomment-154882318

1. When I started cjdns, libsodium was a bit of a joke, if you wanted nacl you
needed to use it.
2. Libsodium does not use the fastest implementations for each processor,
instead it uses a single implementation which works on everything.
3. Cjdns/NaCl has a poly1305 implementation for mips32r2 processors which
doubles the packet forwarding speed... It's written in assembly so it will
never end up in Libsodium and probably not in the OpenWRT nacl.
4. Dynamic linking opens up some various types of security bullshit see:
https://startpage.com/do/search?q=dynamic+linking+exploit
5. How much space savings it is really ? (is it even net-positive if there are
no other applications using nacl?)
6. The more stuff which is external to cjdns that cjdns relies upon, the more
possibility for bugs which only happen on certain systems. I program with the
assumption that the environment is hostile. For example cjdns has it's own
random generator, after what happened with Debian OpenSSL, I would immediately
-1 any attempt to replace that with a dynamically linked source of random.
Basically the nacl that I use on my laptop matches the one that you use and
that makes the safety of cjdns easier to validate. When there is a big major
security vulnerability and it is exposed, everyone is going to point at the one
feature which caused it and say "ho ho ho, that was stupid!" but until that day
comes, everybody is going to push and push for more features, more edge cases,
more things which don't work for the original vision and every one that I let
by will make the security model a little more complex, a little more nuanced
and a little more difficult to validate. Until the day when one of them finally
bites us.

For what this claims to bring, I don't see value worth the pain it (and other
features like it) will cause in the long term.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]