Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:24:37 +0200 From: Gregor Pintar <grpintar@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: High-priority library replacements? 2013/4/26, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Gregor Pintar wrote: >> 2013/4/26, idunham@...abit.com <idunham@...abit.com>: >> > I hate to be the one who says this, but... >> > Why another crypto library? >> > There are at least 6 I can think of off the top of my head >> > (openssl crypto, gcrypt, nettle, tomcrypt, gpg, openbgp) >> > and I know that's not even half of them. >> > tomcrypt is already good (as Rich mentioned), so code quality isn't >> > a reason. >> Most of them are realy bad (support only few ciphers, ugly API, >> inflexible, license). >> tomcrypt is good, but it has some global states (ltc_cipher_descriptor, >> ...) > > Yes, this is stupid, but I don't think there's any reason to use it. > Can't you just use the extern descriptor for the cipher you want > directly? You can't, because modes read from global descriptor. See: https://github.com/libtom/libtomcrypt/blob/master/src/modes/ctr/ctr_start.c > In any case, I agree that when using tomcrypt the register > and unregister functions should be nop'd out and the cipher_descriptor > array replaced with a const version thereof. There may be more changes > needed to fix it too, but that sounds like most of it. But that would break API anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.