[13757] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: LibTomNet [v0.01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Rescorla)
Tue Jul 8 12:42:28 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: tom st denis <tomstdenis@yahoo.com>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Reply-To: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: 07 Jul 2003 16:04:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20030704180604.83305.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com>
tom st denis <tomstdenis@yahoo.com> writes:
> The lib uses RSA for key exchange [and the client may scrutinize the
> key before making the connection via a callback], AES-128-CTR [two
> different keys for each direction] and SHA1-HMAC. The niche of the lib
> is that my library compiles to a mere 10KB. Add SHA1, AES, HMAC, RSA
> and LTM and you get 60KB demo apps Ideally you should build LTC
> without mpi.o and link against both LTC and LTM.
>
> The lib does not implement any other protocol like SSH/SSL/TLS [etc].
>
> I have to mention this in good conscience. I ==>STRONGLY<== DISCOURAGE
> people from using this library in fielded systems. I've only been
> working on it for a day and I wouldn't be surprised if there were
> numerous bugs or points of attack [I've fixed a dozen since last
> night].
[Standard rant follows... :)]
I'm trying to figure out why this is a good idea even in principle.
I've seen <100k SSL implementations and that included the ASN.1
processing for certs. I would imagine that one could do a compliant
SSL implementation that used fixed RSA keys in roughly the same
code size as your stuff.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com]
http://www.rtfm.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
