[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
- To: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: (ITS#7367) [PATCH] MozNSS: update list of supported cipher suites
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:01:16 GMT
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated (OpenLDAP-ITS)
Jan Vcelak wrote:
> Of course, cipher suite enumeration in MozNSS is possible. But
> translation from OpenSSL names without the translation table would be
> very messy. I still think this is a better solution.
>> There were 11 MozNSS patches in 2.4.32. Looks like 5 more waiting for
>> here, plus 2 already committed for 2.4.33. We will not accept patches
>> require constant revisiting every time NSS updates. This is too much.
>> No more.
> I'm sending one patch per change. And looking at the patches, I do not
> think I'm introducing new bugs. It's mostly a fixes for issues present
> in the code before I started sending my first patches. And be sure that
> I'm testing the TLS heavily before submitting anything.
> I do not understand why you strictly refuse anything which comes from
> Fedora or Red Hat. We decided to use MozNSS and you can disagree. We
> still want to fix the problems with that backend to use it without any
> pain. Sorry, I really do not feel like your feedback is constructive.
Let's be very clear. I'm not rejecting patches because they come from Red Hat.
Anyone can plainly see that we have accepted many patches from Red Hat. I'm
rejecting patches because the relevant code sucks, and when things related to
them break, the OpenLDAP Project takes the heat even though we're not
responsible for the breakage. There are CVEs issued against OpenLDAP security
holes, even though the bugs are in MozNSS, not OpenLDAP. I wouldn't have a
problem with these patches if they actually worked, or if Red Hat took the
blame when they don't work, but that's not what has happened. Instead we get
CVE-2012-2668. We get users asking why their TLS connections don't work after
upgrading from one RedHat release to the next. We get a pointless support
burden because users say "we have to run the Red Hat packages otherwise they
won't support us" but then they don't actually ask Red Hat for support, they
It may seem like this feedback is not constructive, but to me it is not
productive for the Project to support a crypto library that was designed for
use in a web browser and still assumes that its callers always have a human
user sitting in front. Bugs like #7316 shouldn't ever have happened.
None of this should come as a surprise to you since I've been stating this
from the very first moment MozNSS support was ever mentioned. The NSS crypto
architecture was never suited for any setting other than a single user
application. It is completely inappropriate for use as a multi-user system
library, or in a headless server environment. That was true 4 years ago when
we first started working with it and it clearly hasn't improved by today.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/