Hacker News Reader

Comment by zokier | Hacker News Reader

Considering the recommendations for NaCL, what is the current status of it? There is NaCL proper and its webpage has link to a 2011 version. Then there is TweetNaCL which seems more recent with a 2014 release. And finally there is libsodium which is not from DJB. What is the recommended version to use? I'd guess TweetNaCL because it is most recent, but idk.

On a slightly related note, I just noticed that there is also µNaCL for embedded use that seems really cool.

View on HN

The current state of it is that Nacl (pronounced: "turnips") circa 2011 is just fine, Tweetnacl is just fine, and if you have packaging concerns, you can use libsodium --- but stick to the constructions that are also in Nacl/Tweetnacl, because libsodium took things a little further than I think they should have.

Could you elaborate on what you think shouldn't have been included in libsodium? I'm very interested in this, as someone who uses libsodium.

Anything that libsodium does, or allows clients to do, that Nacl doesn't allow you to do.

Nacl isn't an open source project or helpmate for application programmers; it's an academic effort to design the best misuse-resistant crypto interface for programmers. I like libsodium, but it is not that.

What are your thoughts on prototype status of NaCL's ed25519 signatures and the updated structure used in libsodium, supercop, ed25519-donna etc....?

Should we prefer curve25519 from NaCL but stick with the finalized ed25519 construction for signatures and long term compatibility?

Curve25519 != Ed25519. Curve25519 is only really useful for straightforward DH. IIRC, point addition isn't defined for Curve25519 meaning it's useless for creating signatures.

I'd guess Thomas meant the NaCL, as in the 2011 version given by God himself to DJB to inscribe on stone tablets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com