Hi Thierry, My requierements are to get the footprint down to approximately 400Kb, uncompressed. I dont think this will be a problem, most pieces are already there it is more an issue of finding (undocumented) config options (#define's etc) and try to make them configurable from Configure.
Another issue is the memory usage of the lib. Some algorithms seem to have recursive and non-recursive implementations. Keep an eye on stack usage if trying out the recursive ones. Timeframe will not be a problem. I will create a patch for my own use and try to submit the changes I feel can help OpenSSL later. I wont wait for a release with my patches. Some patches are already in the Request Tracker. Good luck! Best regards, Enrique On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:05:39AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi enrique. > > I'm glad to see that other people are interesting by such enhancements. > What's your timeframe and goals ? > > thierry > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]@openssl.org le 29/11/2002 09:36:50 > > Veuillez r�pondre � [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Envoy� par : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Pour : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc : Jean-Michel Brun/FR/Schneider@Europe > Objet : Re: Discussions on development of the OpenSSL library: is the > openssl footprintoptimization an attractive axis of enhancement > > > Hi, > > I am involved in similar projects. I am trying to create patches aiming > towards a more configurable library. With this I mean High granularity > when it comes to beeing able to include/exclude what you need. > > Best regards, > Enrique > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:11:10PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'm currently involved in security projects that aim to embed in > industrial > > devices ( minimal hardware ) an ssl extension of implemented protocols. > The > > targeted footprint of the ssl library must be less than 80k bytes. ( > > available memory on devices is < 300k ). > > > > Current available solutions are based on existing, proprietary and cost > > expensive library. > > > > Another( preferred) way is to base our work on the current openssl > > implementation and then to optimize it. But in this case, the main > question > > I have is : if we make such contribution to the openssl project, could we > > expect that these enhancements will be integrated in the current project > ? > > > > I'm convince that the needs of using secure protocols in an industrial > > environment will grow up. So there is perhaps an opportunity to take in > > account these new requirements in order to continue to promote the use of > > openssl. > > > > > > regards > > > > thierry > > > > > > ================================================= > > = Thierry CHICHE > > = > > = Project Manager > > = Software and System department > > = > > = SCHNEIDER-ELECTRIC > > = > > = Research Center A2 > > = 4, rue Volta > > = 38050 Grenoble cedex 9 > > = FRANCE > > = > > = phone: +33 (0)4 76 57 36 18 > > = fax: +33 (0)4 76 57 98 60 > > = e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ==================================================== > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > > Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
