netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] add basic PSP encryption for TCP connections

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:09:24 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@...ats.ca>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, Steffen Klassert
 <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
 borisp@...dia.com, gal@...dia.com, cratiu@...dia.com,
 rrameshbabu@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] add basic PSP encryption for TCP
 connections

On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Paul Wouters wrote:
> > It makes sense to work to get to an IETF standard protocol that
> > captures the same benefits. But that is independent from enabling what
> > is already implemented.  
> 
> How many different packet encryption methods should the linux kernel
> have? There are good reasons to go through standard bodies. Doing your
> own thing and then saying "but we did it already" to me does not feel
> like a strong argument. That's how we got wireguard with all of its
> issues of being written for a single use case, and now being unfit for
> generic use cases.

Now you made me curious. What's wrong with wireguard?
I have only heard good things.