wolfSSL
Hacker ApprovedRanked 2 of 5 TLS libraries by recommenders
Recommended for responsive maintainer support, reasonable commercial licensing, and a transparent approach to vulnerabilities. Critics cite its CVE history, many configuration options, and defaults that are not spec-compliant.
Recommended for responsive maintainer support, reasonable commercial licensing, and a transparent approach to vulnerabilities. Critics cite its CVE history, many configuration options, and defaults that are not spec-compliant.
21 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 14
- criticize it
- 7
- approval share
- 67%
Recommended in 6 of 13 months
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it carries the badge
- 14 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, met.
- 2 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, met.
- Recommended in 6 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Responsive maintainer support
“The maintainer always answered within minutes, which I find quite impressive”
Comment from 13 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?” “it was pretty good support from them”
Comment from 12 Mar 2026 in “WolfIP: Lightweight TCP/IP stack with no dynamic memory allocations” Reasonable price and commercial licensing
“wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work”
Comment from 13 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?” “The price was very reasonable as well.”
Comment from 13 Mar 2026 in “WolfIP: Lightweight TCP/IP stack with no dynamic memory allocations” Named among major alternative TLS libraries
“there's RustTLS, GnuTLS, BoringSSL, LibreSSL, WolfSSL, NSS, and AWS-LC that come to mind immediately”
Comment from 23 Mar 2026 in “GitHub appears to be struggling with measly three nines availability” “compared to WolfSSL, LibreSSL, BoringSSL, etc.”
Comment from 15 Nov 2025 in “SSL Configuration Generator”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Extensive history of CVEs
“crypto code from "all the CVEs" WolfSSL”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “WolfGuard: WireGuard with FIPS 140-3 cryptography” “an extensive portfolio of CVEs”
Comment from 15 Apr 2026 in “Critical flaw in WolfSSL library enables forged certificate use” Many options; defaults not spec-compliant
“WolfSSL has many, many options. Accepting the defaults is not sufficient IME.”
Comment from 14 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?” “it allows for and defaults to spec-noncompliant behavior”
Comment from 16 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?” Evasive replies in issue tracker
“he has the gall to open with "Sorry I missed your replies (life gets busy)"”
Comment from 13 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?” “This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.”
Comment from 13 Feb 2026 in “WolfSSL Sucks Too, So Now What?”
Other TLS libraries people recommend
The four most recommended other TLS libraries, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
See all 5 TLS libraries, rankedWhat people said
22 of the 23 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“I have something built around DTLS 1.3 and am using wolfssl for that reason”
“Mythos Preview constructed an exploit that would let an attacker forge certificates”
“an extensive portfolio of CVEs”
“WolfSSL lags behind in features a bit.”
“I'm very happy with it, actually”
“crypto code from "all the CVEs" WolfSSL”
“Good on WolfSSL for helping out that space.”
“there's RustTLS, GnuTLS, BoringSSL, LibreSSL, WolfSSL, NSS, and AWS-LC that come to mind immediately”
“The price was very reasonable as well.”
“it was pretty good support from them”
“it allows for and defaults to spec-noncompliant behavior”
“I fail to see any victims beyond perhaps the WolfSSL maintainers for having to suffer such entitlement.”
“WolfSSL has many, many options. Accepting the defaults is not sufficient IME.”
“and doesn't put up some bureaucracy”
“I've used WolfSSL in anger and the experience was much better than OpenSSL and AWS-lc.”
“he has the gall to open with "Sorry I missed your replies (life gets busy)"”
“wolfSSL also sells commercial licenses so it's not like they're going uncompensated for their work”
“This game of stalling / obfuscating via the issue tracker gets very old.”
“many have returned to OpenSSL”
“The maintainer always answered within minutes, which I find quite impressive”
“it has a very transparent vulnerabilities approach”
“compared to WolfSSL, LibreSSL, BoringSSL, etc.”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.