Tag Archives: s2n

How to tune TLS for hybrid post-quantum cryptography with Kyber

Post Syndicated from Brian Jarvis original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-tune-tls-for-hybrid-post-quantum-cryptography-with-kyber/

We are excited to offer hybrid post-quantum TLS with Kyber for AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and AWS Certificate Manager (ACM). In this blog post, we share the performance characteristics of our hybrid post-quantum Kyber implementation, show you how to configure a Maven project to use it, and discuss how to prepare your connection settings for Kyber post-quantum cryptography (PQC).

After five years of intensive research and cryptanalysis among partners from academia, the cryptographic community, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NIST has selected Kyber for post-quantum key encapsulation mechanism (KEM) standardization. This marks the beginning of the next generation of public key encryption. In time, the classical key establishment algorithms we use today, like RSA and elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), will be replaced by quantum-secure alternatives. At AWS Cryptography, we’ve been researching and analyzing the candidate KEMs through each round of the NIST selection process. We began supporting Kyber in round 2 and continue that support today.

A cryptographically relevant quantum computer that is capable of breaking RSA and ECC does not yet exist. However, we are offering hybrid post-quantum TLS with Kyber today so that customers can see how the performance differences of PQC affect their workloads. We also believe that the use of PQC raises the already-high security bar for connecting to AWS KMS and ACM, making this feature attractive for customers with long-term confidentiality needs.

Performance of hybrid post-quantum TLS with Kyber

Hybrid post-quantum TLS incurs a latency and bandwidth overhead compared to classical crypto alone. To quantify this overhead, we measured how long S2N-TLS takes to negotiate hybrid post-quantum (ECDHE + Kyber) key establishment compared to ECDHE alone. We performed the tests with the Linux perf subsystem on an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) c6i.4xlarge instance in the US East (Northern Virginia) AWS Region, and we initiated 2,000 TLS connections to a test server running in the US West (Oregon) Region, to include typical internet latencies.

Figure 1 shows the latencies of a TLS handshake that uses classical ECDHE and hybrid post-quantum (ECDHE + Kyber) key establishment. The columns are separated to illustrate the CPU time spent by the client and server compared to the time spent sending data over the network.

Figure 1: Latency of classical compared to hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake

Figure 1: Latency of classical compared to hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake

Figure 2 shows the bytes sent and received during the TLS handshake, as measured by the client, for both classical ECDHE and hybrid post-quantum (ECDHE + Kyber) key establishment.

Figure 2: Bandwidth of classical compared to hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake

Figure 2: Bandwidth of classical compared to hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake

This data shows that the overhead for using hybrid post-quantum key establishment is 0.25 ms on the client, 0.23 ms on the server, and an additional 2,356 bytes on the wire. Intra-Region tests would result in lower network latency. Your latencies also might vary depending on network conditions, CPU performance, server load, and other variables.

The results show that the performance of Kyber is strong; the additional latency is one of the top contenders among the NIST PQC candidates that we analyzed in a previous blog post. In fact, the performance of these ciphers has improved during our latest test, because x86-64 assembly-optimized versions of these ciphers are now available for use.

Configure a Maven project for hybrid post-quantum TLS

In this section, we provide a Maven configuration and code example that will show you how to get started using our assembly-optimized, hybrid post-quantum TLS configuration with Kyber.

To configure a Maven project for hybrid post-quantum TLS

  1. Get the preview release of the AWS Common Runtime HTTP client for the AWS SDK for Java 2.x. Your Maven dependency configuration should specify version 2.17.69-PREVIEW or newer, as shown in the following code sample.

  2. Configure the desired cipher suite in your code’s initialization. The following code sample configures an AWS KMS client to use the latest hybrid post-quantum cipher suite.
    // Check platform support
        throw new RuntimeException(“Hybrid post-quantum cipher suites are not supported.”);
    // Configure HTTP client   
    SdkAsyncHttpClient awsCrtHttpClient = AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient.builder()
    // Create the AWS KMS async client
    KmsAsyncClient kmsAsync = KmsAsyncClient.builder()

With that, all calls made with your AWS KMS client will use hybrid post-quantum TLS. You can use the latest hybrid post-quantum cipher suite with ACM by following the preceding example but using an AcmAsyncClient instead.

Tune connection settings for hybrid post-quantum TLS

Although hybrid post-quantum TLS has some latency and bandwidth overhead on the initial handshake, that cost is amortized over the duration of the TLS session, and you can fine-tune your connection settings to help further reduce the cost. In this section, you learn three ways to reduce the impact of hybrid PQC on your TLS connections: connection pooling, connection timeouts, and TLS session resumption.

Connection pooling

Connection pools manage the number of active connections to a server. They allow a connection to be reused without closing and reopening it, which amortizes the cost of connection establishment over time. Part of a connection’s setup time is the TLS handshake, so you can use connection pools to help reduce the impact of an increase in handshake latency.

To illustrate this, we wrote a test application that generates approximately 200 transactions per second to a test server. We varied the maximum concurrency setting of the HTTP client and measured the latency of the test request. In the AWS CRT HTTP client, this is the maxConcurrency setting. If the connection pool doesn’t have an idle connection available, the request latency includes establishing a new connection. Using Wireshark, we captured the network traffic to observe the number of TLS handshakes that took place over the duration of the application. Figure 3 shows the request latency and number of TLS handshakes as the maxConcurrency setting is increased.

Figure 3: Median request latency and number of TLS handshakes as concurrency pool size increases

Figure 3: Median request latency and number of TLS handshakes as concurrency pool size increases

The biggest latency benefit occurred with a maxConcurrency value greater than 1. Beyond that, the latencies were past the point of diminishing returns. For all maxConcurrency values of 10 and below, additional TLS handshakes took place within the connections, but they didn’t have much impact on median latency. These inflection points will depend on your application’s request volume. The takeaway is that connection pooling allows connections to be reused, thereby spreading the cost of any increased TLS negotiation time over many requests.

More detail about using the maxConcurrency option can be found in the AWS SDK for Java API Reference.

Connection timeouts

Connection timeouts work in conjunction with connection pooling. Even if you use a connection pool, there is a limit to how long idle connections stay open before the pool closes them. You can adjust this time limit to save on connection establishment overhead.

A nice way to visualize this setting is to imagine bursty traffic patterns. Despite tuning the connection pool concurrency, your connections keep closing because the burst period is longer than the idle time limit. By increasing the maximum idle time, you can reuse these connections despite bursty behavior.

To simulate the impact of connection timeouts, we wrote a test application that starts 10 threads, each of which activate at the same time on a periodic schedule every 5 seconds for a minute. We set maxConcurrency to 10 to allow each thread to have its own connection. We set connectionMaxIdleTime of the AWS CRT HTTP client to 1 second for the first test; and to 10 seconds for the second test.

When the maximum idle time was 1 second, the connections for all 10 threads closed during the time between each burst. As a result, 100 total connections were formed over the life of the test, causing a median request latency of 20.3 ms. When we changed the maximum idle time to 10 seconds, the 10 initial connections were reused by each subsequent burst, reducing the median request latency to 5.9 ms.

By setting the connectionMaxIdleTime appropriately for your application, you can reduce connection establishment overhead, including TLS negotiation time, to help achieve time savings throughout the life of your application.

More detail about using the connectionMaxIdleTime option can be found in the AWS SDK for Java API Reference.

TLS session resumption

TLS session resumption allows a client and server to bypass the key agreement that is normally performed to arrive at a new shared secret. Instead, communication quickly resumes by using a shared secret that was previously negotiated, or one that was derived from a previous secret (the implementation details depend on the version of TLS in use). This feature requires that both the client and server support it, but if available, TLS session resumption allows the TLS handshake time and bandwidth increases associated with hybrid PQ to be amortized over the life of multiple connections.


As you learned in this post, hybrid post-quantum TLS with Kyber is available for AWS KMS and ACM. This new cipher suite raises the security bar and allows you to prepare your workloads for post-quantum cryptography. Hybrid key agreement has some additional overhead compared to classical ECDHE, but you can mitigate these increases by tuning your connection settings, including connection pooling, connection timeouts, and TLS session resumption. Begin using hybrid key agreement today with AWS KMS and ACM.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Want more AWS Security news? Follow us on Twitter.

Brian Jarvis

Brian Jarvis

Brian is a Senior Software Engineer at AWS Cryptography. His interests are in post-quantum cryptography and cryptographic hardware. Previously, Brian worked in AWS Security, developing internal services used throughout the company. Brian holds a Bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University and a Master’s degree from George Mason University in Computer Engineering. He plans to finish his PhD “some day”.

Introducing s2n-quic, a new open-source QUIC protocol implementation in Rust

Post Syndicated from Panos Kampanakis original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/introducing-s2n-quic-open-source-protocol-rust/

At Amazon Web Services (AWS), security, high performance, and strong encryption for everyone are top priorities for all our services. With these priorities in mind, less than a year after QUIC ratification in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), we are introducing support for the QUIC protocol which can boost performance for web applications that currently use Transport Layer Security (TLS) over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). We are pleased to announce the availability of s2n-quic, an open-source Rust implementation of the QUIC protocol added to our set of AWS encryption open-source libraries.

What is QUIC?

QUIC is an encrypted transport protocol designed for performance and is the foundation of HTTP/3. It is specified in a set of IETF standards ratified in May 2021. QUIC protects its UDP datagrams by using encryption and authentication keys established in a TLS 1.3 handshake carried over QUIC transport. It is designed to improve upon TCP by providing improved first-byte latency and handling of multiple streams, and solving issues such as head-of-line blocking, mobility, and data loss detection. This enables web applications to perform faster, especially over poor networks. Other potential uses include latency-sensitive connections and UDP connections currently using DTLS, which now can run faster.

Renaming s2n

AWS has long supported open-source encryption libraries; in 2015 we introduced s2n as a TLS library. The name s2n is short for signal to noise, and is a nod to the almost magical act of encryption—disguising meaningful signals, like your critical data, as seemingly random noise.

Now that AWS introduces our new QUIC open-source library, we are renaming s2n to s2n-tls. s2n-tls is an efficient TLS library built over other crypto libraries like OpenSSL libcrypto or AWS libcrypto (AWS-LC). AWS-LC is a general-purpose cryptographic library maintained by AWS which originated from the Google project BoringSSL. The s2n family of AWS encryption open-source libraries now consists of s2n-tls, s2n-quic, and s2n-bignum. s2n-bignum is a collection of bignum arithmetic routines maintained by AWS designed for crypto applications.

s2n-quic details

Similar to s2n-tls, s2n-quic is designed to be small and fast, with simplicity as a priority. It is written in Rust, so it reaps some of its benefits such as performance, thread and memory-safety. s2n-quic depends either on s2n-tls or rustls for the TLS 1.3 handshake.

The main advantages of s2n-quic are:

  • Simple API. For example, a QUIC echo server-example can be built with just a few API calls.
  • Highly configurable. s2n-quic is configured with code through providers that allow an application to granularly control functionality. You can see an example of the server’s simple config in the QUIC echo server-example.
  • Extensive testing. Fuzzing (libFuzzer, American Fuzzy Fop (AFL), and honggfuzz), corpus replay unit testing of derived corpus files, testing of concrete and symbolic execution engines with bolero, and extensive integration and unit testing are used to validate the correctness of our implementation.
  • Thorough interoperability testing for every code change. There are multiple public QUIC implementations; s2n-quic is continuously tested to interoperate with many of them.
  • Verified correctness, post-quantum hybrid key exchange, and maturity for the TLS handshake when built with s2n-tls.
  • Thorough compliance coverage tracking of normative language in relevant standards.

Some important features in s2n-quic that can improve performance and connection management include CUBIC congestion controller support, packet pacing, Generic Segmentation Offload (GSO) support, Path MTU Discovery, and unique connection identifiers detached from the address.

AWS is continuing to invest in encryption optimization techniques, UDP performance improvement technologies, and formal code verification with the AWS Automated Reasoning Group to further enhance the library.

Like s2n-tls, which has already been introduced in various AWS services, AWS services that need to make use of the benefits of QUIC will begin integrating s2n-quic. QUIC is a standardized protocol which, when introduced in a service like web content delivery, can improve user experience or application performance. AWS still plans to continue support for existing protocols like TLS, so existing applications will remain interoperable. Amazon CloudFront is scheduled to be the first AWS service to integrate s2n-quic with its support for HTTP/3 in 2022.


If you are interested in using or contributing to s2n-quic source code or documentation, they are publicly available under the terms of the Apache Software License 2.0 from our s2n-quic GitHub repository.

If you package or distribute s2n-quic or s2n-tls, or use it as part of a large multi-user service, you may be eligible for pre-notification of security issues. Please contact [email protected].

If you discover a potential security issue in s2n-quic or s2n-tls, we ask that you notify AWS Security by using our vulnerability reporting page.

Stay tuned for more topics on s2n-quic like quantum-resistance, performance analyses, uses, and other technical details.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.

Want more AWS Security news? Follow us on Twitter.


Panos Kampanakis

Panos has extensive experience on cybersecurity, applied cryptography, security automation, and vulnerability management. He has trained and presented on various security topics at technical events for numerous years, and also co-authored Cisco Press books, papers, standards, and research publications. He has participated in various security standards bodies to provide common interoperable protocols and languages for security information sharing, cryptography, and PKI. In his current role, Panos works with engineers and industry standards partners to provide cryptographically secure tools, protocols, and standards.

Round 2 post-quantum TLS is now supported in AWS KMS

Post Syndicated from Alex Weibel original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/round-2-post-quantum-tls-is-now-supported-in-aws-kms/

AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) now supports three new hybrid post-quantum key exchange algorithms for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 encryption protocol that’s used when connecting to AWS KMS API endpoints. These new hybrid post-quantum algorithms combine the proven security of a classical key exchange with the potential quantum-safe properties of new post-quantum key exchanges undergoing evaluation for standardization. The fastest of these algorithms adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overheard compared to a classical TLS handshake. The new post-quantum key exchange algorithms added are Round 2 versions of Kyber, Bit Flipping Key Encapsulation (BIKE), and Supersingular Isogeny Key Encapsulation (SIKE). Each organization has submitted their algorithms to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of NIST’s post-quantum cryptography standardization process. This process spans several rounds of evaluation over multiple years, and is likely to continue beyond 2021.

In our previous hybrid post-quantum TLS blog post, we announced that AWS KMS had launched hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 with Round 1 versions of BIKE and SIKE. The Round 1 post-quantum algorithms are still supported by AWS KMS, but at a lower priority than the Round 2 algorithms. You can choose to upgrade your client to enable negotiation of Round 2 algorithms.

Why post-quantum TLS is important

A large-scale quantum computer would be able to break the current public-key cryptography that’s used for key exchange in classical TLS connections. While a large-scale quantum computer isn’t available today, it’s still important to think about and plan for your long-term security needs. TLS traffic using classical algorithms recorded today could be decrypted by a large-scale quantum computer in the future. If you’re developing applications that rely on the long-term confidentiality of data passed over a TLS connection, you should consider a plan to migrate to post-quantum cryptography before the lifespan of the sensitivity of your data would be susceptible to an unauthorized user with a large-scale quantum computer. As an example, this means that if you believe that a large-scale quantum computer is 25 years away, and your data must be secure for 20 years, you should migrate to post-quantum schemes within the next 5 years. AWS is working to prepare for this future, and we want you to be prepared too.

We’re offering this feature now instead of waiting for standardization efforts to be complete so you have a way to measure the potential performance impact to your applications. Offering this feature now also gives you the protection afforded by the proposed post-quantum schemes today. While we believe that the use of this feature raises the already high security bar for connecting to AWS KMS endpoints, these new cipher suites will impact bandwidth utilization and latency. However, using these new algorithms could also create connection failures for intermediate systems that proxy TLS connections. We’d like to get feedback from you on the effectiveness of our implementation or any issues found so we can improve it over time.

Hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2

Hybrid post-quantum TLS is a feature that provides the security protections of both the classical and post-quantum key exchange algorithms in a single TLS handshake. Figure 1 shows the differences in the connection secret derivation process between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2. Hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2 has three major differences from classical TLS 1.2:

  • The negotiated post-quantum key is appended to the ECDHE key before being used as the hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) key.
  • The text hybrid in its ASCII representation is prepended to the beginning of the HMAC message.
  • The entire client key exchange message from the TLS handshake is appended to the end of the HMAC message.
Figure 1: Differences in the connection secret derivation process between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2

Figure 1: Differences in the connection secret derivation process between classical and hybrid post-quantum TLS 1.2

Some background on post-quantum TLS

Today, all requests to AWS KMS use TLS with key exchange algorithms that provide perfect forward secrecy and use one of the following classical schemes:

While existing FFDHE and ECDHE schemes use perfect forward secrecy to protect against the compromise of the server’s long-term secret key, these schemes don’t protect against large-scale quantum computers. In the future, a sufficiently capable large-scale quantum computer could run Shor’s Algorithm to recover the TLS session key of a recorded classical session, and thereby gain access to the data inside. Using a post-quantum key exchange algorithm during the TLS handshake protects against attacks from a large-scale quantum computer.

The possibility of large-scale quantum computing has spurred the development of new quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms. NIST has started the process of standardizing post-quantum key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs). A KEM is a type of key exchange that’s used to establish a shared symmetric key. AWS has chosen three NIST KEM submissions to adopt in our post-quantum efforts:

Hybrid mode ensures that the negotiated key is as strong as the weakest key agreement scheme. If one of the schemes is broken, the communications remain confidential. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Hybrid Post-Quantum Key Encapsulation Methods for Transport Layer Security 1.2 draft describes how to combine post-quantum KEMs with ECDHE to create new cipher suites for TLS 1.2.

These cipher suites use a hybrid key exchange that performs two independent key exchanges during the TLS handshake. The key exchange then cryptographically combines the keys from each into a single TLS session key. This strategy combines the proven security of a classical key exchange with the potential quantum-safe properties of new post-quantum key exchanges being analyzed by NIST.

The effect of hybrid post-quantum TLS on performance

Post-quantum cipher suites have a different performance profile and bandwidth usage from traditional cipher suites. AWS has measured bandwidth and latency across 2,000 TLS handshakes between an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) C5n.4xlarge client and the public AWS KMS endpoint, which were both in the us-west-2 Region. Your own performance characteristics might differ, and will depend on your environment, including your:

  • Hardware–CPU speed and number of cores.
  • Existing workloads–how often you call AWS KMS and what other work your application performs.
  • Network–location and capacity.

The following graphs and table show latency measurements performed by AWS for all newly supported Round 2 post-quantum algorithms, in addition to the classical ECDHE key exchange algorithm currently used by most customers.

Figure 2 shows the latency differences of all hybrid post-quantum algorithms compared with classical ECDHE alone, and shows that compared to ECDHE alone, SIKE adds approximately 101 milliseconds of overhead, BIKE adds approximately 9.5 milliseconds of overhead, and Kyber adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overhead.

Figure 2: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles for four key exchange algorithms

Figure 2: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles for four key exchange algorithms

Figure 3 shows the latency differences between ECDHE with Kyber, and ECDHE alone. The addition of Kyber adds approximately 0.3 milliseconds of overhead.

Figure 3: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles, with only top two performing key exchange algorithms

Figure 3: TLS handshake latency at varying percentiles, with only top two performing key exchange algorithms

The following table shows the total amount of data (in bytes) needed to complete the TLS handshake for each cipher suite, the average latency, and latency at varying percentiles. All measurements were gathered from 2,000 TLS handshakes. The time was measured on the client from the start of the handshake until the handshake was completed, and includes all network transfer time. All connections used RSA authentication with a 2048-bit key, and ECDHE used the secp256r1 curve. All hybrid post-quantum tests used the NIST Round 2 versions. The Kyber test used the Kyber-512 parameter, the BIKE test used the BIKE-1 Level 1 parameter, and the SIKE test used the SIKEp434 parameter.

Item Bandwidth
ECDHE (classic) 3,574 2,000 3.08 2.07 3.02 3.95 4.71
ECDHE + Kyber R2 5,898 2,000 3.36 2.38 3.17 4.28 5.35
ECDHE + BIKE R2 12,456 2,000 14.91 11.59 14.16 18.27 23.58
ECDHE + SIKE R2 4,628 2,000 112.40 103.22 108.87 126.80 146.56

By default, the AWS SDK client performs a TLS handshake once to set up a new TLS connection, and then reuses that TLS connection for multiple requests. This means that the increased cost of a hybrid post-quantum TLS handshake is amortized over multiple requests sent over the TLS connection. You should take the amortization into account when evaluating the overall additional cost of using post-quantum algorithms; otherwise performance data could be skewed.

AWS KMS has chosen Kyber Round 2 to be KMS’s highest prioritized post-quantum algorithm, with BIKE Round 2, and SIKE Round 2 next in priority order for post-quantum algorithms. This is because Kyber’s performance is closest to the classical ECDHE performance that most AWS KMS customers are using today and are accustomed to.

How to use hybrid post-quantum cipher suites

To use the post-quantum cipher suites with AWS KMS, you need the preview release of the AWS Common Runtime (CRT) HTTP client for the AWS SDK for Java 2.x. Also, you will need to configure the AWS CRT HTTP client to use the s2n post-quantum hybrid cipher suites. Post-quantum TLS for AWS KMS is available in all AWS Regions except for AWS GovCloud (US-East), AWS GovCloud (US-West), AWS China (Beijing) Region operated by Beijing Sinnet Technology Co. Ltd (“Sinnet”), and AWS China (Ningxia) Region operated by Ningxia Western Cloud Data Technology Co. Ltd. (“NWCD”). Since NIST has not yet standardized post-quantum cryptography, connections that require Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) compliance cannot use the hybrid key exchange. For example, kms.<region>.amazonaws.com supports the use of post-quantum cipher suites, while kms-fips.<region>.amazonaws.com does not.

  1. If you’re using the AWS SDK for Java 2.x, you must add the preview release of the AWS Common Runtime client to your Maven dependencies.

  2. You then must configure the new SDK and cipher suite in the existing initialization code of your application:
        throw new RuntimeException("Post Quantum Ciphers not supported on this Platform");
    SdkAsyncHttpClient awsCrtHttpClient = AwsCrtAsyncHttpClient.builder()
    KmsAsyncClient kms = KmsAsyncClient.builder()
    ListKeysResponse response = kms.listKeys().get();

Now, all connections made to AWS KMS in supported Regions will use the new hybrid post-quantum cipher suites! To see a complete example of everything set up, check out the example application here.

Things to try

Here are some ideas about how to use this post-quantum-enabled client:

  • Run load tests and benchmarks. These new cipher suites perform differently than traditional key exchange algorithms. You might need to adjust your connection timeouts to allow for the longer handshake times or, if you’re running inside an AWS Lambda function, extend the execution timeout setting.
  • Try connecting from different locations. Depending on the network path your request takes, you might discover that intermediate hosts, proxies, or firewalls with deep packet inspection (DPI) block the request. This could be due to the new cipher suites in the ClientHello or the larger key exchange messages. If this is the case, you might need to work with your security team or IT administrators to update the relevant configuration to unblock the new TLS cipher suites. We’d like to hear from you about how your infrastructure interacts with this new variant of TLS traffic. If you have questions or feedback, please start a new thread on the AWS KMS discussion forum.


In this blog post, I announced support for Round 2 hybrid post-quantum algorithms in AWS KMS, and showed you how to begin experimenting with hybrid post-quantum key exchange algorithms for TLS when connecting to AWS KMS endpoints.

More info

If you’d like to learn more about post-quantum cryptography check out:

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.


Alex Weibel

Alex is a Senior Software Engineer on the AWS Crypto Algorithms team. He’s one of the maintainers for Amazon’s TLS Library s2n. Previously, Alex worked on TLS termination and request proxying for S3 and the Elastic Load Balancing Service developing new features for customers. Alex holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Texas at Austin.