Ockam VS rustls

disclosure: I work at Ockam.

The Portals for Mac app is an example of the type of thing you could build using the open source stack of protocols. The README (linked by parent) links out to all of the relevant parts of the protocol documentation to explain how these work together. The NAT Traversal (https://github.com/build-trust/ockam/blob/develop/examples/a...) part of the README is probably the best explanation of why the free relay you get via Ockam Orchestrator is a useful part of this demo.

As for why would anyone trust this: The protocols are designed so you absolutely don't have to trust the relay. Trust is pushed out to the edges that you control and so you're not susceptible to a MITM attack if something like a relay is compromised. The protocol design for all of this is open and documented, and was independently audited by (IMO) some of the best in the business, Trail of Bits: https://docs.ockam.io/reference/protocols.

🚀 Portals for Mac – A macOS app built in Swift that uses the Ockam Rust library to privately share a service on your Mac with anyone, anywhere. The service is shared securely over an end-to-end encrypted and mutually authenticated Ockam Portal. Your friends will have access to it on their localhost! This app is a great example of the kinds of things you can build with Ockam 👉

Ockam is a suite of programming libraries, command line tools, and managed cloud services to orchestrate end-to-end encryption, mutual authentication, key management, credential management, and authorization policy enforcement — all at massive scale. Ockam's end-to-end secure channels guarantee authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of all data-in-motion at the application layer.

We’ve been working on something (https://github.com/build-trust/ockam) that enables exactly this, among a whole host of other use cases. If you check out some of the code examples in the docs you’ll see how to setup a tunnel using the CLI.

For other use cases there’s also the programming libraries (only Rust atm, though I was spiking a TypeScript/Node PoC this week) which might provide more flexibility. Personally I’m excited by the idea of being able to move this kind of secure by design connectivity all the way into the application layer though.

If you're not already an active contributor to an open source project or two it can seem very daunting. You don't want to do the wrong thing and embarrass yourself. Remove that anxiety for people by giving them an easy way to do something low risk. Matt did that a couple of years ago by creating a long-lived issue for people to simply say hello. That's it. Say hi, introduce yourself. It's a safe place to make a first step.

The RustTLS project is currently setting up their own CI benchmarking workflow, so I think that you could find some inspiration there: https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/1385 and https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/1205.

I also studied this question on FFI several weeks ago in terms of "rewrite part of the system in Rust". Unexpected results could be semantic issues (e.g., different error handling methods) or security issues (FFI could be a soundness hole). I suggest going through the issues of libraries that have started rewriting work such as rust-openssl or rustls (This is the one trying to rewrite in whole rust rather than using FFI; however, you will not be able to find the mapping function in the C version and compare them). I hope this helps!

Now for rust implementation of tls. Certificates can be loaded in two ways. * Finds and loads certificates using OS specific tools3 * Uses a rust implementation of webpki4 for loading with certificates5

> Ring is mostly C/Assembly

Crypto needs to be written in Assembly to ensure that operations take a constant time, regardless of input. Writing it in a high level language like C or Rust opens you up to the compiler "optimising" routines and making them no longer constant time.

But you already knew this. And you also knew that the security audit (https://github.com/rustls/rustls/blob/master/audit/TLS-01-re...) of ring was favourable

> No issues were found with regards to the cryptographic engineering of rustls or its underlying ring library. A recommendation is provided in TLS-01-001 to optionally supplement the already solid cryptographic library with another cryptographic provider (EverCrypt) with an added benefit of formally verified cryptographic primitives. Overall, it is very clear that the developers of rustls have an extensive knowledge on how to correctly implement the TLS stack whilst avoiding the common pitfalls that surround the TLS ecosystem. This knowledge has translated reliably into an implementation of exceptional quality.

You said

> a standard library with feature flags and editions would make rust ridiculously much more productive

What's the difference between opting into a library with a feature flag and opting in with a line in Cargo.toml? Let's say you want to use the de-facto regex library. Would it really be ridiculously productive if you said you wanted the "regex" feature flag instead of the "regex" crate?

I do agree that the standard library does need a versioning story so they can remove long deprecated functions. Where it gets complicated is if a new method is reintroduced using the same name in a later edition.

I used the commands listed in the .sh file here: https://github.com/rustls/rustls/tree/main/test-ca to generate keys/certs for a server and a client (with IP.1 records for SANs). I have added the local root CA to the trust store of each VM.

This is great news, this was our single biggest annoyance with rustls. One of our cloud providers choses to issue their hosted postgres instances with TLS certificates with IP addresses. Unusual, but valid per the spec, so why not. Apparently a practise that's also popular in kubernetes settings, so I'm somewhat surprised it took 5 years to close the issue, but now I can finally recommend people to use rustls without mentioning any gotchas.

I believe it is more relevant than you think: servers running in containers, web assembler tasks running in browsers, embedded devices and kernels with total control of the system, all have the ability to do something more sensible than plain out SIGABRT or similar, and in many the case is not that the complete system is falling down. For example RustTLS is looking into allowing fallible allocators and as a pretty general-purpose library that seems like a nice feature. I do wish ulimit -v worked in a sensible manner with applications.