[Cryptography] OpenSSL minimal "safe" configuration?

[Ray Dillinger]

On 01/17/2016 07:52 AM, Henry Baker wrote:
> At 04:14 PM 1/13/2016, Ray Dillinger wrote:

>> But I really, really object to the idea that being compatible with
>> insecure crap should be the *DEFAULT* configuration, or that scripts
>> invoking insecure operations in OpenSSL should continue to work after
>> those operations are discovered to be insecure.

>  Furthermore, even when those legacy
> protocols are turned off *by default*, the code still
> remains for active hacking -- e.g., ROP programming using
> this old code as a larger attack surface.

This.  Paranoia or not, the attack surface those insecure ops leave
is an unacceptable risk.  If it won't build without MD5, then a
temporary fix would be to make a version of MD5 wherein every
routine contains a call to assert(false).  But a far better fix
would be to just clean up the code so it doesn't call those routines
at all.

Henry, are you still having trouble getting a clean build without
all the insecure legacy stuff?  Maybe I can help, or if you
haven't made much progress, maybe I should just start working on
it myself?

					Bear



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160117/9484f8d6/attachment.sig>