Re: cryptography default_backend is "hazmat"?

2017-03-20 Thread Ian Pilcher
On 03/19/2017 05:46 PM, Paul Moore wrote: 1. Fernet symmetric encryption, which is fine, but needs me to manage the key safely (and offers no help in doing that) 2. X509, whose docs are a reference (that you need to understand X509 to follow) and a couple of tutorials on generating/requesting

Re: cryptography default_backend is "hazmat"?

2017-03-19 Thread Paul Moore
On Sunday, 19 March 2017 03:16:17 UTC, Arthur Darcet wrote: > On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 at 23:29, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > > On 03/18/2017 05:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > So the question is: How well do you trust the examples? Are they > > > likely to be instructing you in a

Re: cryptography default_backend is "hazmat"?

2017-03-18 Thread Arthur Darcet
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 at 23:29, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 03/18/2017 05:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > > So the question is: How well do you trust the examples? Are they > > likely to be instructing you in a safe way to use this > > potentially-dangerous module? > > But as far

Re: cryptography default_backend is "hazmat"?

2017-03-18 Thread Ian Pilcher
On 03/18/2017 05:15 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: So the question is: How well do you trust the examples? Are they likely to be instructing you in a safe way to use this potentially-dangerous module? But as far as I can tell, there's no way to use many of the non-hazmat functions (e.g. parsing a

Re: cryptography default_backend is "hazmat"?

2017-03-18 Thread Chris Angelico
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > Yet another newbie question/observation ... > > So every example I can find of using python-cryptography includes a > call to cryptography.hazmat.backends.default_backend(). Of course, the > documentation at