132 строки
7.2 KiB
ReStructuredText
132 строки
7.2 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
|
Project Goals
|
|
================================
|
|
|
|
Botan seeks to be a broadly applicable library that can be used to implement a
|
|
range of secure distributed systems.
|
|
|
|
The library has the following project goals guiding changes. It does not succeed
|
|
in all of these areas in every way just yet, but it describes the system that is
|
|
the desired end result. Over time further progress is made in each.
|
|
|
|
* Secure and reliable. The implementations must of course be correct and well
|
|
tested, and attacks such as side channels and fault attacks should be
|
|
accounted for where necessary. The library should never crash, or invoke
|
|
undefined behavior, regardless of circumstances.
|
|
|
|
* Implement schemes important in practice. It should be practical to implement
|
|
any real-world crypto protocol using just what the library provides. It is
|
|
worth some (limited) additional complexity in the library, in order to expand
|
|
the set of applications which can easily adopt Botan.
|
|
|
|
* Ease of use. It should be straightforward for an application programmer to do
|
|
whatever it is they need to do. There should be one obvious way to perform any
|
|
operation. The API should be predicable, and follow the "principle of least
|
|
astonishment" in its design. This is not just a nicety; confusing APIs often
|
|
result in errors that end up compromising security.
|
|
|
|
* Simplicity of design, clarity of code, ease of review. The code should be easy
|
|
to read and understand by other library developers, users seeking to better
|
|
understand the behavior of the code, and by professional reviewers looking for
|
|
bugs. This is important because bugs in convoluted code can easily escape
|
|
multiple expert reviews, and end up living on for years.
|
|
|
|
* Well tested. The code should be correct against the spec, with as close to
|
|
100% test coverage as possible. All available static and dynamic analysis
|
|
tools at our disposal should be used, including fuzzers, symbolic execution,
|
|
and protocol specific tools. Within reason, all warnings from compilers and
|
|
static analyzers should be addressed, even if they seem like false positives,
|
|
because that maximizes the signal value of new warnings from the tool.
|
|
|
|
* Safe defaults. Policies should aim to be highly restrictive by default, and if
|
|
they must be made less restrictive by certain applications, it should be
|
|
obvious to the developer that they are doing something unsafe.
|
|
|
|
* Post quantum security. Possibly a practical quantum computer that can break
|
|
RSA and ECC will never be built, but the future is notoriously hard to predict.
|
|
It seems prudent to begin designing and deploying systems now which have at
|
|
least the option of using a post-quantum scheme. Botan provides a conservative
|
|
selection of algorithms thought to be post-quantum secure.
|
|
|
|
* Performance. Botan does not in every case strive to be faster than every other
|
|
software implementation, but performance should be competitive and over time
|
|
new optimizations are identified and applied.
|
|
|
|
* Support whatever I/O mechanism the application wants. Allow the application to
|
|
control all aspects of how the network is contacted, and ensure the API makes
|
|
asynchronous operations easy to handle. This both insulates Botan from
|
|
system-specific details and allows the application to use whatever networking
|
|
style they please.
|
|
|
|
* Portability to modern systems. Botan does not run everywhere, and we actually
|
|
do not want it to (see non-goals below). But we do want it to run on anything
|
|
that someone is deploying new applications on. That includes both major
|
|
platforms like Windows, Linux, Android and iOS, and also promising new systems
|
|
such as IncludeOS and Fuchsia.
|
|
|
|
* Well documented. Ideally every public API would have some place in the manual
|
|
describing its usage.
|
|
|
|
* Useful command line utility. The botan command line tool should be flexible
|
|
and featured enough to replace similar tools such as ``openssl`` for everyday
|
|
users.
|
|
|
|
Non-Goals
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
There are goals some crypto libraries have, but which Botan actively does not
|
|
seek to address.
|
|
|
|
* Deep embedded support. Botan requires a heap, C++ exceptions, and RTTI, and at
|
|
least in terms of performance optimizations effectively assumes a 32 or 64 bit
|
|
processor. It is not suitable for deploying on, say FreeRTOS running on a
|
|
MSP430, or smartcard with an 8 bit CPU and 256 bytes RAM. A larger SoC, such
|
|
as a Cortex-A7 running Linux, is entirely within scope.
|
|
|
|
* Implementing every crypto scheme in existence. The focus is on algorithms
|
|
which are in practical use in systems deployed now, as well as promising
|
|
algorithms for future deployment. Many algorithms which were of interest
|
|
in the past but never saw widespread deployment and have no compelling
|
|
benefit over other designs have been removed to simplify the codebase.
|
|
|
|
* Portable to obsolete systems. There is no reason for crypto software to
|
|
support ancient OS platforms like SunOS or Windows 2000, since these unpatched
|
|
systems are completely unsafe anyway. The additional complexity supporting
|
|
such platforms just creates more room for bugs.
|
|
|
|
* Portable to every C++ compiler ever made. Over time Botan moves forward to
|
|
both take advantage of new language/compiler features, and to shed workarounds
|
|
for dealing with bugs in ancient compilers, allowing further simplifications
|
|
in the codebase. The set of supported compilers is fixed for each new release
|
|
branch, for example Botan 2.x will always support GCC 4.8. But a future 3.x
|
|
release version will likely increase the required versions for all compilers.
|
|
|
|
* FIPS 140 validation. The primary developer was (long ago) a consultant with a
|
|
NIST approved testing lab. He does not have a positive view of the process or
|
|
results, particularly when it comes to Level 1 software validations. The only
|
|
benefit of a Level 1 validation is to allow for government sales, and the cost
|
|
of validation includes enormous amounts of time and money, adding 'checks'
|
|
that are useless or actively harmful, then freezing the software so security
|
|
updates cannot be applied in the future. It does force a certain minimum
|
|
standard (ie, FIPS Level 1 does assure AES and RSA are probably implemented
|
|
correctly) but this is an issue of interop not security since Level 1 does not
|
|
seriously consider attacks of any kind. Any security budget would be far
|
|
better spent on a review from a specialized crypto consultancy, who would look
|
|
for actual flaws.
|
|
|
|
That said it would be easy to add a "FIPS 140" build mode to Botan, which just
|
|
disabled all the builtin crypto and wrapped whatever the most recent OpenSSL
|
|
FIPS module exports.
|
|
|
|
* Educational purposes. The library code is intended to be easy to read and
|
|
review, and so might be useful in an educational context. However it does not
|
|
contain any toy ciphers (unless you count DES and RC4) nor any tools for
|
|
simple cryptanalysis. Generally the manual and source comments assume previous
|
|
knowledge on the basic concepts involved.
|
|
|
|
* User proof. Some libraries provide a very high level API in an attempt to save
|
|
the user from themselves. Occasionally they succeed. It would be appropriate
|
|
and useful to build such an API on top of Botan, but Botan itself wants to
|
|
cover a broad set of uses cases and some of these involve having pointy things
|
|
within reach.
|