Hacker News Reader

Comment by yalue | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft Go? I've used Go on windows for years now and this is the first I've heard of this fork. So it only exists because microsoft wants to have a crypto package that complies with an arbitrary regulation? Is there a reason that a better package requires a fork of the entire runtime rather than just, say, a normal Go package? It sounds like it requires cgo to call into third-party libraries, but that's already a common practice in "normal" Go libraries.

One thing I do appreciate is how the relevant issue in the upstream Go repo says: "A number of companies must comply with them, for example as part of a broader FedRAMP compliance posture. (If that's not you, you can ignore this. Run!)" [1]

Apparently I'm just not the target audience. Sounds like I'm correct in assuming it's security theater at best, and an avenue for new backdoors at worst.

[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/69536

View on HN

The comment is accurate that if you don't need this, you can ignore it. It's likely not an avenue for backdoors. I wouldn't say it's security theater but it just isn't meaningful to most.

As for why not a library? Go has a pretty big "batteries included" implementation for networking. For customers demanding FIPS compliance it isn't enough to say, write all of your own application code to use a package that does FIPS-compliant TLS, but you have to make sure all of your libraries also use those algorithms. No rational person is going to vendor their entire dependency tree and maintain forks of the entire universe to swap `crypto/tls` and `net/http`. Well, some of these contracts are big enough to justify it, but whew, what a waste.

The FIPS compliant Go builds from Microsoft and now Go 1.24 make it a lot easier to check that box and unless a package implemented their own TLS stack it's easy to attest that the software uses FIPS validated crypto modules. Without that, good luck trying to sell to gov and highly regulated institutions in financial and health.

Wouldn't declaring the "replace" directive in go.mod once take effect for all the dependencies?

Oh that's an interesting question, I've never tried to build a binary with "replace"-ing one of the builtin packages.

Maybe that works? But many of the standard library packages use linker shenanigans, if I recall, like //go:linkname pragmas. Maybe that's an issue, maybe not?

It would be interesting if the fork was unnecessary and it was possible to implement FIPS via package replacements! That would be a lot simpler.

"replace" is an operation on modules. Networking is part of the standard library, which is a single (very special) module. Even if you could "replace" std, it would not really be less than creating a fork.

"Is there a reason that a better package requires a fork of the entire runtime rather than just, say, a normal Go package?"

I think at the time that would have been the only way to make it so any in-the-wild 3rd party code you want to use would use the FIPS-compliant libraries anytime someone imported "crypto/whatever" from the standard library.

I haven't tested the workspaces functionality [1] to see if it allows you to override standard library functionality, but in principle something either very like that, or slightly tweaked, would be enough that you could just use standard Go with a particular text file dropped into place and some libraries to override the standard library now.

But yeah, if you didn't even know this fork existed, you're not in the target audience. tptacek or someone else who really knows their stuff can Cunningham's Law me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that FIPS has a track record of rigidly demanding very medium levels of security, possibly including some rigidly poor security choices, and if you don't have a need to be in compliance, you can and should do much better by using newer and better options than what it mandates.

[1]: https://go.dev/doc/tutorial/workspaces

Reply on news.ycombinator.com