On 9. jan. 2018, at 7:40 f.h., Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> wrote:
> On January 9, 2018 10:05 AM, Rich Salz wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see how many changes you need to support your
>> platform.
> Surprisingly not many at all. The platform has been significantly modernized 
> since early ports. Most of the differences are the addition of a FLOSS layer 
> (though #includes) and one byte swap issue on bn_mul_add_words that I'm not 
> sure is relevant anymore. Some of the tracked files that generated 
> (tests/Makefile) have spacing difference due to tooling differences. The 
> code, however, is very close to vanilla as of 1.0.2n.

In this case, I think Dmitry Belyavsky's suggestion makes the most sense. SPECK 
can be built as an ENGINE, the same way that GOST, CAPI, etc. are. (see [1].) 
This may require small changes to OpenSSL proper (to add OIDs, say), but they 
should be small enough not to add any complexity or maintenance burden to 
OpenSSL. If/when SPECK gains more use, or is considered for standardization in 
TLS, etc., then this codebase can be moved into OpenSSL's. In the meantime, 
people can build the SPECK engine to use it in an OpenSSL-based program.

[1] https://github.com/gost-engine/engine

openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Reply via email to