Early std.crypto

Brad Anderson eco at gnuk.net
Sun Nov 27 12:14:48 PST 2011


On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:27 AM, bcs <bcs at example.com> wrote:

> On 11/26/2011 04:19 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> How about putting a disclaimer on the module warning the code hasn't
>> been through a rigorous security audit and point them at well
>> established C libraries if they need that sort of assurance.
>>
>
> What does that gain over implementing the first itteration in terms of
> well established C libraries and then replacing that with native
> implementations as the code goes been through a rigorous security audit?
>
> Or how about do both as API compatible implementations? That would work
> for people who need the proven security and people who can't afford
> external dependencies as well as allow them to be swapped out for each
> other with minimal effort once the native code is proven.
>

That's even better but isn't the issue over bundling incompatibly licensed
libraries with phobos?  Nothing is stopping someone from writing bindings
for these libraries as some random library on D Source or Github already.
 An agreed upon API would be very nice in any case.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20111127/57e25f1e/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list