|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:48:30 +0200 From: Bodo Moeller <moeller@cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, cypherpunks@lne.com In-Reply-To: <200306021554.h52Fsrf17422@medusa01.cs.auckland.ac.nz> pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann): > [0] Note that my SSL implementation follows the standard SSL ladder diagram > rather than the state-machine that SSL implementations are usually > described as, which made it trivial to switch over for SSHv2 use. I've > never understood why every explanation of the SSL protocol I've ever seen > uses ladder diagrams but once they talk about implementation details they > assume you're doing it as a state machine, which makes it vastly harder to > implement. For example all the stuff about pending cipher suites and > whatnot follows automatically (and transparently) from the ladder diagram, > but is a real pain to sort out in a state machine. Using an explicit state machine helps to get code suitable for multiplexing within a single thread various connections using non-blocking I/O. -- Bodo Möller <moeller@cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> PGP http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/moeller/0x36d2c658.html * TU Darmstadt, Theoretische Informatik, Alexanderstr. 10, D-64283 Darmstadt * Tel. +49-6151-16-6628, Fax +49-6151-16-6036 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |