Don Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >there's another rationale my clients often give for wanting a new security >system, instead of the off- the-shelf standbys: IPSec, SSL, Kerberos, and >the XML security specs are seen as too heavyweight for some applications. >the developer doesn't want to shoehorn these systems' bulk and extra >flexibility into their applications, because most applications don't need >most of the flexibility offered by these systems.
Hmm, I think the size argument is a bit of a red herring - you can strip SSL and SSH down and run it in remarkably little space (3DES, RSA, SHA-1 and a static server cert will get you talking to any non-crippled SSL client, for example). I've got users running SSL and SSH servers on little 16-bit embedded systems (alongside the existing app that the SSL or SSH is securing), and AFAIK their main problem is that doing RSA or DH on the 16-bit CPU isn't exactly quick. Peter (still backlogged, if you're waiting for mail please be patient). --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]