Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 21:32:23 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NOCRYPT / NOSECURE Message-ID: <xzpllx8hupk.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <200305151820.h4FIK2gN027630@grimreaper.grondar.org> (Mark Murray's message of "Thu, 15 May 2003 19:20:02 %2B0100") References: <200305151820.h4FIK2gN027630@grimreaper.grondar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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'd also approve of a wrapper script that > calls openssl(1) or des(1) and make a compatible bdes(1). That's possible of course, but bdes(1) has a lot of command-line options which we'd need to implement. Probably not worth the trouble. > Similar scripts > may be a good idea for md5(1) and sha1(1). 'ln -s /usr/bin/openssl /usr/bin/md5' is almost right for md5(1), except for some parentheses in the output IIRC. ISTR the same goes for sha1(1). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpllx8hupk.fsf>