Additional note:
Several things, such as postgresql (client and server) and apache with
SSL, already require that the openssl implementation be installed on
the system. The SSH implementation installed on the systems will
likely also require it. Adding another makes no sense, especially when
we already have openssl's sitting there from everything else. Given
that we can SSH across endianess and int sizes I assume that all of
that is covered properly in the openssl implementation.
Thomas Berezansky
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
Quoting Jason Stephenson <[email protected]>:
Quoting Scott McKellar <[email protected]>:
--- On Mon, 12/21/09, Jason Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:
Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just
farm the work out to libcrypto? Last I checked OpenSSL
typically has a SHA1 implementation that you don't have to
fiddle with.
Jason
I have no intention of reinventing any wheels. I did a quick Google and
saw the OpenSSL project among others. What I don't know is how portable
they are. The ones I looked at so far don't say very much on their
websites about architectures, int sizes, endianness, or other aspects of
portability. I'd rather not have to decipher a dozen different
implementations of an algorithm I don't understand in order to figure
out which ones are better than what we've got.
OpenSSL is about as portable as you can get, and is pretty much
guaranteed to be installed on any machine that can host OpenILS.
If anybody already knows of a suitable implementation, or knows of one
that we should avoid, you may be able to save me some time.
Scott McKellar
