Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I wonder if the performance gains are due to BoringSSL being faster than OpenSSL?

I linked to the in-depth explanations below; it has stuff like

> The difference between OpenSSL and rustls appears to be thanks to an extra copy in the main data-path in OpenSSL.


> It appears OpenSSL recalculates and then discards the local public key when processing the server’s key share extension. This likely explains the larger performance deficit in this test.

in it. So I doubt that it's the result of differences in the primitives.

X.509 parsing has no allocations and call depth is significantly less than OpenSSL.

That’s very cool!

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact