dfoxfra...@gmail.com said:
> Setting aside any countervailing considerations concerning dependencies and
> binary footprint, yes. MAC computation lives in the real-time critical
> section where speed means precision so any optimization we can get here is a
> win.
Just to make sure we are all on
If you are deeply concerned with speed, the older (less recommended)
interfaces for MD5 and SHA1 in OpenSSL are faster than the newer EVP
interface. (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but you may want to do
some benchmarking to see if you care.)
https://www.openssl.org/docs/man1.0.1/crypto/
Gary E. Miller :
> Yo Mark!
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:17:40 +
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> > Can libsodium upstream take a pull request that adds the hash
> > functions that we need?
>
> My understanding is that they considered md5 and sha1 too dangerous to
> use and would not be complicit wit
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 08:38:06PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Eric S. Raymond writes:
> > It depends on which MAC algorithms we want to support, a question I've
> > opened
> > in a recent email. It looks like libsodium's support for hash functions in
> > our set is limited to SHA-2, so libsodium
Eric S. Raymond writes:
> It depends on which MAC algorithms we want to support, a question I've opened
> in a recent email. It looks like libsodium's support for hash functions in
> our set is limited to SHA-2, so libsodium can't replace OpenSSL.
SHA1 will go out of OpenSSL sooner than you might
On 1/27/17, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Ah, now I get it. They do support new good stuff, they don't support old
> bad stuff.
>
> Daniel, are you suggesting we want to use OpenSSL instead of inline C of
> md5 and sha1 to take advantage of optimized asm and accellerated
> implementations?
Setting aside
Ah, now I get it. They do support new good stuff, they don't support old
bad stuff.
Daniel, are you suggesting we want to use OpenSSL instead of inline C of
md5 and sha1 to take advantage of optimized asm and accellerated
implementations?
..m
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:43 AM Gary E. Miller wro
Yo Mark!
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:17:40 +
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Can libsodium upstream take a pull request that adds the hash
> functions that we need?
My understanding is that they considered md5 and sha1 too dangerous to
use and would not be complicit with anyone doing do.
RGDS
GARY
---
Can libsodium upstream take a pull request that adds the hash functions
that we need?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:40 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Hal Murray :
> > We currently have 2 and 1/4 crypto packages. That seems like the sort of
> > things you like to clean up.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I would have s
Hal Murray :
> We currently have 2 and 1/4 crypto packages. That seems like the sort of
> things you like to clean up.
Yes.
> I would have said we have 2 1/2, but somebody deleted half of the 1/2. I
> assume that was part of the --enable-crypto cleanup. There used to be
> routines in libisc
We currently have 2 and 1/4 crypto packages. That seems like the sort of
things you like to clean up.
I would have said we have 2 1/2, but somebody deleted half of the 1/2. I
assume that was part of the --enable-crypto cleanup. There used to be
routines in libisc for MD5 and SHA1. md5.c is
11 matches
Mail list logo
