[fpc-pascal] HMAC_SHA1 and FPC
shiruba at galapagossoftware.com
Tue Apr 2 05:13:46 CEST 2013
Actually I think on OS X and Linux it makes sense to depend on OpenSSL, but
not for the reasons you mentioned so much as one more: Security. If you
are using doing encryption, then it's better to use a library that is
updated more often for bug fixes, and to have the updates be applied to
your program automatically. If you static-link it in, it will never be
updated until you update it and ship a new version of your program and
everyone installs it. If you dynamically link to it, then then the
operating system updates it, you get the updates "for free".
After bad past experiences with VB and OCX files that broke all the time,
and Java (enough said), I vastly prefer to use Pascal code in most cases
and have everything linked static (less moving parts = less to break) - but
there can be exceptions. (I use SQLite a lot, which isn't included by
default in Windows). For HMAC only though I just use Synapse.
2013/3/26 Anthony Walter <sysrpl at gmail.com>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:23 AM, silvioprog <silvioprog at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't know why so much work if you can use it directly from the FCL.
> OpenSSL is quite robust, well documented. tested, and proven
> OpenSSL provides a full compilement of cryptography and hashing functions
> On Linux/OSX you can link to external shared object files, which further
> reduces project build size and system resources
> Side benefit: OpenSSL also provides a simple secure socket implementation,
> which many times pairs nicely along with SHA/HMAC
> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fpc-pascal