Serge Paccalin wrote to me: > What about giving year values rather than 1, 2, 3...? > > The user would put: > > #define CRYPTOPP_ENABLE_NAMESPACE_WEAK 2005 > > in his code to accept algorithms that were not considered weak before > 2005, and you would check for the year before "namespacing" an algorithm > or issuing a weakness warning in Crypto++ source code. Each algorithm > would have its weakness year threshold. > (The macro might need to be renamed to make it clearer what it actually > does.) > > This solution seems to reconcile both suggestions in my view.
>From the perspective of a Crypto++ user, I'm not sure I see the point of this. I think I'd just be interested in knowing which algorithms are known to be weak now, or have been discovered to be weak since the last time I upgraded to a new version of Crypto++. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
