> On 20 Feb 2024, at 13:40, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 20.02.24 12:39, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> A fifth option is to throw away our in-tree implementations and use the OpenSSL
>> API's for everything, which is where this thread started. If the effort to
>> payoff ratio is palatable to anyone then patches are for sure welcome.
>
> The problem is that, as I understand it, these crypt routines are not designed in a way that you can just plug in a
cryptolibrary underneath. Effectively, the definition of what, say, blowfish crypt does, is whatever is in that source
file,and transitively, whatever OpenBSD does.
I don't disagree, but if the OP is willing to take a stab at it then..
> (Fun question: Does OpenBSD care about FIPS?)
No, LibreSSL ripped out FIPS support early on.
> Of course, you could reimplement the same algorithms independently, using OpenSSL or whatever. But I don't think
thiswill really improve the state of the world in aggregate, because to a large degree we are relying on the upstream
tokeep these implementations maintained, and if we rewrite them, we become the upstream.
As a sidenote, we are already trailing behind upstream on this, the patch in
[0] sits on my TODO, but given the lack of complaints over the years it's not
been bumped to the top.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
[0]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA-7PziyARoKi_9e2xdC75RJ068XPVk1CHDDdscu2BGrPuW9TQ%40mail.gmail.com#b20783dd6c72e95a8a0f6464d1228ed5