[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | > | > My question is, what is the layperson supposed to do, if they must > use > | > | > crypto and can't use an off-the-shelf product? > | > | > | > | When would that be the case? > | > | > | > | The only defensible situations I can think of in which a > | > | non-crypto-specialist programmer would need to write crypto routines > | > | would be an uncommon OS or hardware, or a new or rare programming > | > | language which doesn't have libraries available from SourceForge etc. > | > | Or maybe implementing an algorithm that's new enough it doesn't have a > | > | decent free implementation, but I'm not sure such an algorithm should > | > | be used in production code. > | > I can tell you a situation that applied in one system I worked on: You > | > could > | > go with SSL, which gets you into GPL'ed code, not to mention the known > | > | Eh? OpenSSL is BSD, not GPL. > When I last looked at this, OpenSSL was BSD, but it required some libraries > (GMP?) that were GPL.
No, OpenSSL is self-contained. There is, IIRC, an engine that uses GMP if you want, but its entirely optional; OpenSSL has its own bignum implementation that's just as good. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]