On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:24AM -0400, spencer 'sporty' portee wrote:
As of late, the company I work for, Community Connect, needs to extend the
openssl php module and might be able to release the source. It is for RSA
encryption, but in my own interest, i would like to add on the other
On 2001-05-04 17:59:03, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds good, please have a look at bug report 10665 by
[EMAIL PROTECTED], he has implemented RSA encryption, and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
followed up on that. It would be good if you and Sascha Kettler could
agree on how the API
On 2001-05-04 17:59:03, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds good, please have a look at bug report 10665 by
[EMAIL PROTECTED], he has implemented RSA encryption, and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
followed up on that. It would be good if you and Sascha Kettler could
agree on how the API
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:22:03PM +0200, Sascha Kettler wrote:
You won't need to pass the algorithm by an arg, as the key already contains
the algorithm identification (pkey-type). I haven't used any DSA encryption
yet, but maybe you can just add the code to the switch statements.
Ah yes, I
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:22:03PM +0200, Sascha Kettler wrote:
You won't need to pass the algorithm by an arg, as the key already contains
the algorithm identification (pkey-type). I haven't used any DSA encryption
yet, but maybe you can just add the code to the switch statements.
but if
On 2001-05-04 17:59:03, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
followed up on that. It would be good if you and Sascha Kettler could
agree on how the API should be
How about:
openssl_key_encrypt(
string data, // to encrypt
string crypted, // encrypted result
mixed key, // key to use
On 2001-05-04 19:05:05, spencer 'sporty' portee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:22:03PM +0200, Sascha Kettler wrote:
You won't need to pass the algorithm by an arg, as the key already
contains
the algorithm identification (pkey-type). I haven't used any DSA
encryption
On 2001-05-04 18:22:03, Sascha Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You won't need to pass the algorithm by an arg, as the key already
contains
the algorithm identification (pkey-type). I haven't used any DSA
encryption
yet, but maybe you can just add the code to the switch statements.
Yes, I've
On 2001-05-04 18:22:03, Sascha Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You won't need to pass the algorithm by an arg, as the key already
contains
the algorithm identification (pkey-type). I haven't used any DSA
encryption
yet, but maybe you can just add the code to the switch statements.
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:21:28PM +0200, Sascha Kettler wrote:
On 2001-05-04 17:59:03, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
followed up on that. It would be good if you and Sascha Kettler could
agree on how the API should be
How about:
openssl_key_encrypt(
string data, //
[...]
Even though it is 4 functions, I think users will find it easier to
work with functions called openssl_public_encrypt,
openssl_private_decrypt etc. It also separates them from possible
symmetric enryption later on.
How about returning the result like this:
string
On 2001-05-04 20:47:25, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though it is 4 functions, I think users will find it easier to
work with functions called openssl_public_encrypt,
openssl_private_decrypt etc. It also separates them from possible
symmetric enryption later on.
So are we
On 2001-05-04 20:21:28, Sascha Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds ok, although I wouldn't call it openssl_key_* but openssl_asym_*
similar.
Yeah, that sounds better.
I don't know what people would prefer: Separate functions or a
boolean. What's the general opinion on that?
On 2001-05-04 20:47:25, Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though it is 4 functions, I think users will find it easier to
work with functions called openssl_public_encrypt,
openssl_private_decrypt etc. It also separates them from possible
symmetric enryption later on.
So are we
I've used SSLeay back in 1996 once, and then a few weeks ago for my patch.
You don't need to be an openssl expert, but as with all cryptography you
should have some basic understanding before using it.
which is why i'm still confused on how you intend to get any of the openssl functions
to
On 2001-05-04 20:21:28, Sascha Kettler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds ok, although I wouldn't call it openssl_key_* but openssl_asym_*
similar.
Yeah, that sounds better.
I don't know what people would prefer: Separate functions or a
boolean. What's the general opinion on that?
IMHO,
I've used SSLeay back in 1996 once, and then a few weeks ago for my
patch.
You don't need to be an openssl expert, but as with all cryptography you
should have some basic understanding before using it.
which is why i'm still confused on how you intend to get any of the
openssl
17 matches
Mail list logo
