Ah, the joys of diversity. Implementations of all your favorite protocols in all your favorite programming languages by all your favorite programmers in all your favorite countries on all your favorite operating systems for all your favorite chips.
Continuous debugging certainly is the path to secure computing. Cheers, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Tyler Close [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Choosing an implementation language On Thursday 02 October 2003 09:21, Jill Ramonsky wrote: > I was thinking of doing a C++ implentation with classes and > templates and stuff. (By contrast OpenSSL is a C > implementation). Anyone got any thoughts on that? Given the nature of recent, and past, bugs discovered in the OpenSSL implementation, it makes more sense to implement in a memory-safe language, such as python, java or squeak. Using a VM hosted language will limit the pool of possible users, but might create a more loyal user base. I know the squeak community <http://www.squeak.org/> does not have SSL and would very much like to have it. An implementation of SSL in squeak would also be of interest to the Squeak-E project, related to the E project <http://www.erights.org/>. Tyler -- The union of REST and capability-based security: http://www.waterken.com/dev/Web/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
