> Last I heard, AMK was no longer maintaining pycrypto, and a number of > people have found weird issues with it and were generally uncertain > of the correctness of the implemented crypto. > > > The pycrypto API is is very nice. But if we were to consider it > > for the standard library I'd prefer it just link against OpenSSL > > rather than use its own C implementations and just leave platforms > > without ssl without any crypto. > > That's one option, although there seems to be some FUD surrounding > OpenSSL licensing and its interactions with the GPL: > > <http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html> > > It's also a standalone library, and it strikes me as much nicer to > just have Python provide the crypto functionality out of the box. So, > if we built an API atop the (public domain) LibTomCrypt code that > mimicked that of pycrypto, would anyone object to getting that kind > of thing into the Python source distribution?
I'm +1 for that. LibTomCrypt is a great place to start. -gps
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
