Stephan Neuhaus wrote:

>> Yes, there's a need for a "crypto practices FAQ" to which one can refer.
> I disagree because you cannot force developers to read (and understand)
> these FAQs.  Instead, there is a need for APIs that are difficult to use
> in an insecure way.  For example, Peter Gutmann's cryptlib makes it
> intentionally hard to get at private key material because of precisely
> this issue.  Also, I believe, cryptlib does not allow RSA in anything
> but ECB mode, because doing so means the developer is seriously on the
> wrong track here.

This is a good point, and it reminds me of this presentation from Rusty
Russell on "levels" of Linux kernel interfaces. See
and following.

The main issue I see is how do you force the developer to adopt your
library and corresponding API? A secondary issue is what do you do if
there isn't a suitable library and API yet available? In cases where you
can't (yet) provide a simple "use cryptlib" response, a crypto practices
FAQ would be helpful for pointing out common problems and explaining
them well.

I've started a wiki in case anyone wants to hack on such a FAQ:

-David Molnar

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to