Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90265
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7NpPWn0MsXjbFw9gNvRxm98XkHFk=RvQ1v0hRqcdGS3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKws9z1g24rD=t92+9xKtO=3PuwQ3_N=L36gmVMqCC84CoqipQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7-Lk=jGsTQgRZOvBpcPPgdX3V-23=3_k9CXbmxU77V1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKws9z248Kj=0qTLPZik0Ki1_zGPq+4fr6HQi_keeVCso1S4eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7NpPWn0MsXjbFw9gNvRxm98XkHFk=RvQ1v0hRqcdGS3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:30:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nEF83hPdYMcQi5M9Ze7dCNgqeTSq8S9y28knNxOEq=9Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

Pierre,

>> Even if we axe mcrypt and in with a net-gain of 0 extensions, you'd
>> see it as a risk?
>
> Except that we already refused to kill mcrypt, and it is not like I
> did not try to convince us to kill it.

We decided not to kill it for 7.0. That doesn't mean it got a permanent buy...


>> Let me state this clearly: I'm personally not going to bother pushing
>> for a pluggable crypto API if the only option is to use OpenSSL and
>> all its legacy cruft. I especially don't have lukewarm feelings
>> towards RSA or ECDSA, which are your only real options with it.
>>
>> I feel that it simply would not be a worthwhile use of my time to do
>> so. If Internals decides "no libsodium" but "yes pluggable crypto
>> API", you'll have to find someone else to spearhead it.
>
> Sorry, my point was not clear.
>
> I do like the concept of a pluggable crypto API. Very much. I said it
> before and I say it again. I love the concept and will do what I can
> to support it :)
>
> What I do not like too much is the addition of an extension with
> (relatively) low level functions for one specific library. It does not
> really matter how good is this specific library, I simply do not see
> such addition as a good strategic move.

I agree with you in principle, but in this particular case I think
that there's enough justification considering how measurably bad
mcrypt is, and how little some people trust openssl. That leaves no
room in core. So in this case I think it *may* be worth it to add it.

Anthony