We have ported wolfSSL to the ThreadX operating environment! Our decision to invest in the porting process is based on strong customer demand for a small footprint, high performance, royalty free SSL library on ThreadX. ThreadX and wolfSSL have a lot in common. Both companies operate under similar business models, target similar usage profiles, and work with the same chip and board vendors. With regard to usage profile, both ThreadX and wolfSSL operate well in resource constrained environments and are popular with developers of today’s new generation of connected devices. We have also seen that wolfSSL is popular for device developers implementing code signing.
If you want to test wolfSSL for ThreadX, just download our latest source and build it in your environment. Let us know if you face any issues and we’ll be happy to help. Just email us at firstname.lastname@example.org!
As of this writing, wolfSSL, which is our small embedded SSL library, supports all of the most commonly used OpenSSL functions. As time goes on, we are incrementally improving our OpenSSL compatibility.
Our process for improvement is driven by two forces.
Firstly, we respond to customer requirements. Our customers migrate from OpenSSL to wolfSSL for a variety of reasons. Some migrate to get support for a particular RTOS or embedded environment not supported by OpenSSL. Others need to reduce the overall size of their application by using a smaller library. There are also some that migrate because they are seeking commercial licensing and professional support.
Secondly, we test the compatibility layer by building wolfSSL with other open source projects that currently use OpenSSL. We simply see what breaks, and then we add the missing OpenSSL functions to fix it. You can see a couple of these efforts available on our download page in the form of experimental versions of Lighttpd and Stunnel. Contact us if you would like help compiling wolfSSL with Lighttpd or stunnel. We’ll be happy to help!
Did you know that wolfSSL is integrated into the LuCI project, which is a web interface for embedded devices? LuCI is an interface tool for wireless routers. See here for project details: http://luci.subsignal.org/
The wolfSSL embedded ssl library and Gnu TLS are the first SSL libraries to support the new TLS 1.2 standard. The TLS specification can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt. The first browser to support TLS 1.2 is Opera. It appears that TLS 1.2 support is also available in Windows 7, though not by default. As of this writing support from other browsers appears to be in the works.
Why use TLS 1.2? In a nutshell, enhanced security. TLS 1.2 is less susceptible to MITM attacks, has stronger default security, and adds some additional flexibility for developers.
Are you using or evaluating wolfSSL’s TLS 1.2 support? Let us have your feedback! We would also love to know what extensions to the specification that you think we should support.
Hi! We have embedded wolfSSL into Memcache and are now making it available to beta testers.
There are no obligations for beta testers, so if you want to just review our changes to the source, that is fine. The first beta will not include client libraries, and we currently don’t know which ones should be supported, so your feedback here is critical. Let us know which Memcache clients to support. Your vote counts! We’ll work with beta testers to provide the client library they need. Our ideal beta tester has a test rig where they can assess the performance of a wolfSSL secured Memcache versus a regular Memcache. If community interest in the beta is strong, and feedback is positive, then we’ll submit a branch/patch of Memcache with wolfSSL to the main source tree. Contact us at email@example.com to receive the beta.
We`re considering adding Windows Kernel compatibility to wolfSSL. This means that our embedded SSL library would run in Kernel mode and use either TDI or WinSocK Kernel. We`re not sure at this point whether we should use TDI or WinSocK Kernel. The advantage of this project may include performance enhancement for device driver implementers that want SSL security. Frankly speaking, we`re not sure if there will be other advantages and would love feedback on the general usefulness of this idea. Do Kernel developers want an SSL library? Please comment!