From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 10 16:57:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D947416A4CE; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:57:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pd4mo3so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9E443D41; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:57:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk) Received: from pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (pd3mr5so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.12])2004)) with ESMTP id <0I8I009ZCN48IDA0@l-daemon>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:57:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml8so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.152]) by pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I8I000VHN48W640@pd3mr5so.prod.shaw.ca>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:57:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (S0106006067227a4a.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.233.42])2003)) with ESMTP id <0I8I00BDFN47GU@l-daemon>; Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:57:44 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:57:42 -0800 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <200412101014.iBAAEict086798@grovel.grondar.org> To: Mark Murray Message-id: <41B9D586.5070403@wadham.ox.ac.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <200412101014.iBAAEict086798@grovel.grondar.org> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041107) cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding standalone RSA code X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:57:45 -0000 Mark Murray wrote: > 240k is not a big binary, and it sounds like your applet is one that > may get heavy use. Unless you have a different definition of "heavy use" than me, no. I don't intend to replace openssl; I want some code for occasional high security purposes -- like verifying the integrity of binary security patches. > Is size really a concern? No. The size is a side-effect of having a minimal, highly secure, library, and was not a design consideration. Colin Percival