Skip to content

Comment on Rustls Outperforms OpenSSL and BoringSSLparent

Comments

How so? What standards do you need support for?

As a library vying to replace OpenSSL, the same set of suites as OpenSSL.

I'm no longer blocked on this particular issue that I filed on behalf of my work at Deno, but they aren't interested in adding less-secure suites that may be required by certain server configurations, but still appropriate for traffic that isn't general web-use.

https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/1607

At some point I had a list of suites required to connect to some older versions of MySQL/Microsoft SQL Server, but again, no longer blocked.

For server-to-server use where I don't control one end of the equation, I stick with the OpenSSL crate. If there's potentially older servers in the mix, I'm OK with using rustls as a backend for things like reqwest, but it'll be openssl for servers for now.

I understand the philosophy, but rustls is never going to be an OpenSSL drop-in until this approach changes.

Semi-related, I now avoid native-tls because MacOS + gatekeeper + weird JAMF configuration makes that library completely unreliable in the wild.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.