SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread rz1a
Hello openssl-dev, Does SHA-512 depend on int64 support in the tool-chain? If so, are there any plans to make in a bit more portable? Thank you in advance. -- Best regards, Anthony mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
Does SHA-512 depend on int64 support in the tool-chain? Yes, it's explicitly mentioned in FAQ. If so, are there any plans to make in a bit more portable? Not really. As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued, I'd rather recommend to disable algorithm in question

Re[2]: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread rz1a
AP As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued... Do I face the prospect of not being able to update at all (past some 0.9.9)?! As the more code in the OpenSSL gets updated - the more I'll disable in ./configure? Quite sad... AP How wide-spread the target platform? It is QNX4.

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
AP As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued... Do I face the prospect of not being able to update at all (past some 0.9.9)?! Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-)

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Jim Schneider
On Friday 15 July 2005 13:32, Andy Polyakov wrote: AP As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued... Do I face the prospect of not being able to update at all (past some 0.9.9)?! Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other words 16-bit

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Andy Polyakov
AP As support for platforms narrower than 32-bit is discontinued... Do I face the prospect of not being able to update at all (past some 0.9.9)?! Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-)

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Brian Hurt
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

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Jim Schneider
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

Re[2]: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread rz1a
Hello Andy, Friday, July 15, 2005, 9:32:10 PM, you wrote: AP Once again, platforms *narrower* than 32-bits are discontinued, in other AP words 16-bit one[s]. Is your platform 16-bit? I find it hard to believe:-) Oh! Yes, now I see the point - *NARROWER*! QNX4 is 32bit OS. The only problem is in

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Brian Hurt
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jim Schneider wrote: 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

Re: SHA-512 and long long - does SHA-512 depend on it?

2005-07-15 Thread Rich Salz
What's so hard to believe about a 16 bit embedded system (or even an 8 bit embedded system) that may need some kind of secure network access? Nothing at all. What's hard to imagine is that a free development effort must support all the latest and greatest crypto techniques for such a platform.