On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM, danimoth <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27/10/12 at 06:47pm, Patrick Pelletier wrote: > [cut] >> Besides the poor documentation, the other thing about OpenSSL is >> that it is definitely not "batteries included." Now, I'm not > [cut] > > I think they use a "batteries included" approach in the enc code: > man pages [2] talks about a IV/key generation, so OpenSSL doesn't > provide the primitive block cipher (and you, user, need to take care of > stream cipher mode when you need it) but instead they offer an all-included > solution, absolutely non-standard IMHO, which derives key and IV from > passphrase, with a salt. > Am I wrong in something? > > BTW, a concurrent library, Crypto++, does the exact opposite [1]. > > [1] http://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard > [2] http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/enc.html I think that's apples and oranges - a comparison is being made between openssl.exe and Crypto++'s AES class. Perhaps it would be better to compare OpenSSL's utility (openssl.exe) to Crypto++'s utility (cryptest.exe).
If you look in default.cpp (http://www.cryptopp.com/docs/ref/default_8cpp_source.html), you will see GenerateKeyIV(...). Its uses a Mash(..) function, too. The functions are used by cryptest.exe in its encryption/decryption routines. Jeff _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
