

Theo de Raadt: "[heartbleed] does not affect SSH at all" - chrissnell
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140408063423

======
bostik
Well, duh.

OpenSSH links to OpenSSL libraries, but only for the cryptographic primitives.
SSH is a different protocol. It doesn't need TLS for anything.

It's also a simpler protocol, with less baggage and interoperability
requirements.

~~~
webmaven
Huh. That suggests a strategy for a viable OpenSSL replacement: create a new
protocol implementation that also links to the OpenSSL libraries only for the
cryptographic primitives.

~~~
bostik
As someone who has actually had no choice but to write code that uses OpenSSL
libraries: if you're going to reimplement a proper TLS stack, you might as
well actually spend time to design the API properly. (And use some less insane
crypto library instead.)

OpenSSL is used because it has a lot of inertia, and because it still has had
_a lot_ of testing. Any new library would need to have an imperial buttload of
extremely aggressive tests with near-complete coverage from the start to be
even considered an option. Even then the uphill battle to unseat OpenSSL will
be long and arduous. Being simply superior and easier to use is not enough.
You have to convince an industry, worth tens or hundreds of billions, to
actually see big enough a benefit to even consider your implementation as a
viable option.

So in addition to economical realities you would still have a massive hurdle
ahead: getting crypto right is hard. Really, _really_ hard.

Sure enough, there are alternatives to OpenSSL. But unfortunately it's like
having to choose between varieties of cancer or STD's. You don't like the any
of the choices, and in fact, you would prefer not to be in a position to have
to make the choice in the first place.

~~~
webmaven
How many Metric Buttloads in an Imperial Buttload?

~~~
bostik
Roughly 1/e * pi.

