Rustls Outperforms OpenSSL and BoringSSL - Prossimo (www.memorysafety.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago by snaggen@programming.dev to c/rust@programming.dev

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago

very nice, now let's see that binary size.

[-] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 18 points 3 weeks ago

Unless the binary size difference is insane, who would say "oh well we were going to pick the library that wasn't riddled with security issues but we decided to save 2MB instead, hope that makes you feel better about your $12m cybersecurity fine!".

[-] KamikazeRusher@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

There are only going to be edge-cases where the binary size will really cause headache. Individual projects probably won’t worry too much about a size difference if it’s less than 10-20MB.

[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

my whole career is those edge cases

[-] KamikazeRusher@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago

I don’t doubt that some places care about a 1MB size difference. After all, some embedded systems with limited storage need every megabyte they can spare.

[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

yes, i know people that will pay 12m to save 2mb.

[-] Solemarc@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I can't be bothered to build them but looking at the releases on GitHub openssl 3.4.0 is 17.5mb and rustls is 2.6mb. both of these releases are source files not binaries but I don't see how rustls could possibly be larger than openssl.