Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:18:31 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Subject: Re: NOCRYPT / NOSECURE Message-ID: <200305161418.h4GEIVgN072174@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 May 2003 09:11:18 -0300." <3EC4D566.5070306@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" writes: > Mark Murray wrote: > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: > > > >>Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> writes: > >> > >>>If openssl's des(1) is the same as our bdes(1) (ie, gives the same results) > >>>then I'm in support of this. > >> > >>I haven't compared OpenSSL'S des(1) directly with bdes(1), but they > >>are both ports (or reimplementations) of Sun's des(1), and I've used > >>OpenSSL's des(1) in the past to exchange data with Solaris users who > >>were using Sun's des(1). > > > > > > I've converted our bdes(1) to use the openSSL library. I've also done > > ed(1). :-). libcipher is now OBE. > > 1) What happens if I compile with no crypto (whatever it is/will be > called these days)? No change. > 2) ed(1) is /bin/ed. Won't that cause trouble? No. Instead of not using libcipher, it won't use libcrypto. :-) M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305161418.h4GEIVgN072174>