Re: [1/5] secur32: Require gnutls for schannel

[Marcus Meissner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>

> From cb10664e7d7526951d97f6d9ba2f7429d20b69d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:39:11 +0200
> Subject: secur32: Require gnutls for schannel
> +AC_ARG_WITH(gnutls,    AS_HELP_STRING([--without-gnutls],[do not use GnuTLS (schannel support)]))

Hmm,

I really do not think gnutls will have a long feature,
NSS seems to be the future choice of crypto frameworks :/

Ciao, Marcus

[1/5] secur32: Require gnutls for schannel

[Lei Zhang]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Marcus Meissner
<marcus(a)rennboot.centrumbabylon.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> >
> > From cb10664e7d7526951d97f6d9ba2f7429d20b69d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:39:11 +0200
> > Subject: secur32: Require gnutls for schannel
> > +AC_ARG_WITH(gnutls,    AS_HELP_STRING([--without-gnutls],[do not use GnuTLS (schannel support)]))
>
> Hmm,
>
> I really do not think gnutls will have a long feature,
> NSS seems to be the future choice of crypto frameworks :/
>
> Ciao, Marcus

s/feature/future/ ?

[1/5] secur32: Require gnutls for schannel

[Marcus Meissner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 02:36:36PM -0700, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Marcus Meissner
> <marcus(a)rennboot.centrumbabylon.cz> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10:11PM +0200, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> > >
> > > From cb10664e7d7526951d97f6d9ba2f7429d20b69d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Henri Verbeet <hverbeet(a)gmail.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:39:11 +0200
> > > Subject: secur32: Require gnutls for schannel
> > > +AC_ARG_WITH(gnutls,    AS_HELP_STRING([--without-gnutls],[do not use GnuTLS (schannel support)]))
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > I really do not think gnutls will have a long feature,
> > NSS seems to be the future choice of crypto frameworks :/
> >
> > Ciao, Marcus
>
> s/feature/future/ ?

future, yes.

But in the end ... well, we will see what wins ;)

Ciao, Marcus

[1/5] secur32: Require gnutls for schannel

[Henri Verbeet]

2008/9/8 Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)rennboot.centrumbabylon.cz>:
> Hmm,
>
> I really do not think gnutls will have a long feature,
> NSS seems to be the future choice of crypto frameworks :/
>
> Ciao, Marcus

I did have a look at NSS, but didn't see a way to make it work with a
simple buffer, which makes in impractical to use for schannel.
Perhaps I missed something there though. Another option would of
course be to implement TLS ourselves, it's not all that complicated
actually.

[1/5] secur32: Require gnutls for schannel

[Marcus Meissner]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:37:39PM +0200, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> 2008/9/8 Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)rennboot.centrumbabylon.cz>:
> > Hmm,
> >
> > I really do not think gnutls will have a long feature,
> > NSS seems to be the future choice of crypto frameworks :/
> >
> > Ciao, Marcus
>
> I did have a look at NSS, but didn't see a way to make it work with a
> simple buffer, which makes in impractical to use for schannel.
> Perhaps I missed something there though. Another option would of
> course be to implement TLS ourselves, it's not all that complicated
> actually.

Hmm. The security guy in me says "do not reimplement" ;)

If its easier with gnutls, please use it. (It will not go away
due to lots of software requiring it).

Ciao, Marcus