On a side note, the Electron actually uses Chromium's BoringSSL instead of OpenSSL for the Node.js binary, so an Electron app supports fewer ciphers and hashes than the original Node.js.AES-CCM is not supported in Electron, so I cannot achieve Goal #2 on desktop without 3rd-party libraries.
Native Node.js modules are supported by Electron, but since Electron has a different application binary interface (ABI) from a given Node.js binary (due to differences such as using Chromium's BoringSSL instead of OpenSSL), the native modules you use...
opened 08:55AM - 26 Dec 18 UTC
closed 07:32PM - 04 Feb 19 UTC
bug
bug/regression
4-2-x
* Output of `node_modules/.bin/electron --version`: 4.0.0
* Operating System (… Platform and Version): Windows 10
* Output of `node_modules/.bin/electron --version` on last known working Electron version (if applicable): v3.x.x
**Expected Behavior**
Generally , invoke ``crypto.createCipheriv ()`` that should return a Cipheriv Object.
**Actual behavior**
When I call ``crypto.createCipheriv()`` , it will response me a error that is **unknown cipher** .
But If I run this program(**test code** ) alone by node cmd. (ex. node test.js ) that it work.
So I don't think it is a node10 problem.
**To Reproduce**
**sample code**
in main.js
```
const crypto = require('crypto')
const methodName = 'aes-256-cfb'
const key = 'nMvTdb7VXMPudFWH'
const iv = crypto.randomBytes(16)
const cipher = crypto.createCipheriv(methodName, key, iv)
console.log(cipher)
```
**Response:**
in Electron 4 or more newer
```
unknown cipher
```
in Electron 3.x , more older or run alone by node cmd
```
Cipheriv {
_handle: {},
_decoder: null,
_options: undefined,
writable: true,
readable: true }
```
opened 03:47PM - 11 Sep 19 UTC
closed 01:15PM - 12 Sep 19 UTC
Hi,
in the latest source code it looks like electron_node is built using bo… ringssl instead of openssl directly. I wanted to confirm if my understanding is correct ?
I saw in this issue https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/25890 there was some discussion about this.
looking at `third_party/electron_node/BUILD.gn` in the latest source suggests that boringSSL is what's used
```
if (node_use_openssl) {
print("node_use_openssl in BUILD.gn")
deps += [ "//third_party/boringssl" ]
sources += [
"src/node_crypto.cc",
"src/node_crypto.h",
"src/node_crypto_bio.cc",
"src/node_crypto_bio.h",
"src/node_crypto_clienthello-inl.h",
"src/node_crypto_clienthello.cc",
"src/node_crypto_clienthello.h",
"src/node_crypto_groups.h",
"src/tls_wrap.cc",
"src/tls_wrap.h",
]
print("deps: ", deps)
cflags_cc += [ "-Wno-sign-compare" ]
}
```
printing our `process.versions` from an electron app still lists `openssl: '1.1.0'` but perhaps that is the version of openssl that is wrapped by boringSSL.
opened 04:52PM - 18 May 20 UTC
closed 04:26AM - 27 May 20 UTC
enhancement
With the switch from OpenSSL to BoringSSL by Chrome a bunch of ciphers were lost… . In the main issue regarding this: https://github.com/electron/electron/issues/16195# it was suggested to open a new issue requesting other ciphers, so hereby was wondering whether there would be any way that Electron could support aes-128-ccm.
Justification for requesting this: Mostly that on IoT devices this is a very popular cipher as it's just more power efficient than alternatives.
I don't really understand how BoringSSL relates to OpenSSL and I don't really understand if it's possible to even enable aes-128-ccm in BoringSSL, but I figured I would put the request out there regardless.
PS. This is to use node libraries that rely on `crypto` exposing this, so manually using a different solution isn't an option right now :(