Jakob,
That's reasonable, although I wouldn't use the word "low" to describe it.
I did try to include 10.1.2 from NIST's SP 800-90C but it didn't make it.
There is nothing preventing the use of the existing DRBGs with longer
digests which Could increase number of bits.
Pauli
On 15/9/21 11:34
On 2021-09-14 12:14, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> ...low security RNGs and other antifeatures.
Huh Where? Why plural?
The only **one** I'm aware of is the one I added to stochastically
flush the property cache where it doesn't need to be cryptographically
secure.
Some applications need mor
> ...low security RNGs and other antifeatures.
Huh Where? Why plural?
The only **one** I'm aware of is the one I added to stochastically flush
the property cache where it doesn't need to be cryptographically secure.
Pauli
Hi fellow sufferer,
I used to do a lot of manual patching of OpenSSL 1.0.x to remove the
insane object interdependencies (such as objects named foolib.c being
nexus points that bring in tonnes of irrelevant code because someone was
too unfamiliar with basic library concepts to make an actual l
Hi,
I have a simple application that uses OpenSSL 3.0.0 for AES-GCM encryption
and decryption only. Looking at the size of the binary on disc, I see it's
a few KBs when linking dynamically with libcrypto, and 4.8 MB when linking
statically. Although I know the large footprint of OpenSSL is consid
