(resurrecting an really old thread, sorry about the delay.)
----- Original Message -----
1) Will I (as a hobbyist packager) be able to reach the proper
conclusion, e.g. find the real place where these defaults are set, such
as [4, 5]?
If you, as the package maintainer, who knows the package, can’t do this, who can? The
security experts can grep for SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list as well as anybody, but following
through the call chain and multiple langauges does require package-specific expertise. A
distribution is supposed to be a set of software customized to work well together, and
yes, that necessarily means understanding the source code and being able to change it. We
_need_ to be able to do such things with Fedora’s packages; perhaps we haven’t been asking
packagers for this much recently, but we need to start, and this is as good a reason to
start as any.
2) What about dynamic languages, such as Ruby, Python etc. They are
covered by the guidelines at all.
Yes, it would be good to expand the guideline to
cover the bindings of the major languages.
3) Should I really rewrite the upstream defaults and how? What will
the impact on other libraries written in Ruby? Not mentioning that there
was quite lengthy controversial discussion upstream  and you ask me
again to override its results.
By my uninformed estimation, the vast majority of TLS using projects either don’t have an
explicit configuration (i.e. there is nothing to be done), or are not carefully
maintaining the cipher list, unlike this recent Ruby change; and even projects that have
recently updated it are not automatically guaranteed to keep maintaining it in the
Libraries written in Ruby _should_ in general inherit the system-wide defaults, though,
yes, this may in very rare cases result in additional patching of these libraries if they
are connecting to specific services that are less secure and need custom configuration.
(It might be interesting to compare the Ruby defaults list and the current version of the