Hello, I would say, let us wrap up what you have, and then we can review the implications that lacking some options might have.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Martin Thwaites <monofo...@my2cents.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply Miguel. > > The crypto will be at least as secure as the existing MachineKey.Encrypt > methods. It's this page that I've not looked: > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.configuration.machinekeycompatibilitymode%28v=vs.110%29.aspx > > There appears to be some new configuration sections that can change the > crypto methods used. However, I've not looked into them so I'm not sure > what they would change. > > Thanks, > Martin > > On 16 October 2014 20:23, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@xamarin.com> wrote: > >> In general, a partial implementation is better than no implementation at >> all. >> >> When it comes to crypto, things are a little bit different, and we need >> to be more careful. >> >> What are the things that would not work from the spec? >> >> Miguel >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Martin Thwaites < >> monofo...@my2cents.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> In my latest endeavour to get the aspnetwebstack functioning on mono, >>> I've found that the MachineKey.Protect and Unprotect classes aren't >>> implemented. >>> >>> So, I've tried to put together something that would work, but not >>> something that meets all the information supplied on MSDN page (e.g. >>> framework options). >>> >>> My question is, I'm piggybacking on the MachineKey.Encrypt/Decrypt >>> methods, is this sufficient to be accepted by the community? >>> >>> Here's the start of what I'm putting together. >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/martinjt/mono/blob/mvc_fixes/mcs/class/System.Web/System.Web.Security/MachineKey.cs >>> >>> So, would a pull along these lines by accepted, or do all the >>> requirements of the MSDN page need to be met? >>> >>> I'm not asking for a review of the pull right now as I need to check >>> against coding standards, and add some more unit tests, just whether a half >>> baked (but working) implementation is acceptable. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Martin >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mono-devel-list mailing list >>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com >>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list