Actually, my point about embedded systems wasn't that they'd necessarily have the full suite of OpenSSL, but that a pared-down version would be desirable. If all I want to do is triple DES with anonymous DH for key exchange on an embedded platform (for example), OpenSSL is probably a good place to start. By explicitly abandoning sub-32 bit systems, this may not be an option going forward.
On Friday 15 July 2005 14:05, Brian Hurt wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > I don't find it hard to believe that there're 16-bit (or even 8-bit) > > systems out there. I find it hard to believe that the originator managed > > to get OpenSSL 0.9.8 working on a 16-bit system, even without SHA-512 > > support. A. > > Lots of embedded work is still on 8-bit processors- 8051s, 68HC11s, etc. > The 16 bits are being replaced by low-end 32-bit processors. But 8-bits > are going to be here for a long time. > > I'm not sure that OpenSSL is a good code base to be used on 8-bit embedded > systems, and at 200K, it's probably iffy for 16-bit systems. So I could > easily see OpenSSL going "We don't support small systems (sub 32-bit)". > But that doesn't mean they aren't out there. > > Brian > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List [email protected] > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
