Has anyone had experience working with OpenSSL ?

- Kris

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:08:46 -0700, Kris <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote:

> Has anyone had experience working with OpenSSL ?

Using it, or writing it?

I have used it, i.e. added SSL support to my socket code.

Regan.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

In article <cbqirm$2tl2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>Has anyone had experience working with OpenSSL ?
>
>- Kris

Yes.

There was much discussion of OpenSSL on the cryptography mailing list a while back. General opinion there is that it was just too damn hard to use for most people to get to grips with. The general feeling was that what was needed alongside it was an "easy-to-use" SSL toolkit. At that stage, I volunteered to write one. It was going to be called TLS++.

But then things changed, because I discovered D. And I discovered that D is more productive than C++. (I can write code in D faster than I can write code in C++). So now, I'm writing said toolkit in D. (And I'll have to think up a new name for it).

It's slow work. So far, I've written big integers, and I'm partway through random number stuff. Others have supplied hash algorithms. It's basically a year-long project, at least. Unfortunately, it's not finished yet.

Which brings us back to OpenSSL, of course. OpenSSL is not even C++, it's just C, so no destructors and you have to manage everything. Me? I gave up and decided to write something better. But it DOES work, if you can get the hang of it.

Arcane Jill

Thank you ~ that's helpful AJ.

>So now, I'm writing said toolkit in D. (And I'll have to think up
> a new name for it).

TLSD would be a psychedelic name <g>



"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbr40l$m66$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cbqirm$2tl2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
> >
> >Has anyone had experience working with OpenSSL ?
> >
> >- Kris
>
> Yes.
>
> There was much discussion of OpenSSL on the cryptography mailing list a
while
> back. General opinion there is that it was just too damn hard to use for
most
> people to get to grips with. The general feeling was that what was needed alongside it was an "easy-to-use" SSL toolkit. At that stage, I
volunteered to
> write one. It was going to be called TLS++.
>
> But then things changed, because I discovered D. And I discovered that D
is more
> productive than C++. (I can write code in D faster than I can write code
in
> C++). So now, I'm writing said toolkit in D. (And I'll have to think up a
new
> name for it).
>
> It's slow work. So far, I've written big integers, and I'm partway through random number stuff. Others have supplied hash algorithms. It's basically
a
> year-long project, at least. Unfortunately, it's not finished yet.
>
> Which brings us back to OpenSSL, of course. OpenSSL is not even C++, it's
just
> C, so no destructors and you have to manage everything. Me? I gave up and decided to write something better. But it DOES work, if you can get the
hang of
> it.
>
> Arcane Jill
>
>