Index
> Windows > RSA in dllGoto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
asmrox
do you have rsa encryption dlls with simple api like (in key, in message, out ptr output)?
|
|||
10 May 2008, 12:36 |
|
|
vid
I prefer libtomcrypt - you can build it to DLL easily.
|
|||
|
10 May 2008, 18:35 |
|
|
asmrox
libtomcrypt is a dll?
i really dont have patience for those damn makefiles and other shit form .zip all but no .DLL/.EXE ! |
|||
|
10 May 2008, 20:59 |
|
|
vid
not sure if there is precompiled DLL version, but compiling it yourself could easily be just few clicks in MS Visual Studio, or something like "make dll" command... Learning to use basic tools like makefiles is must-have for programmer.
|
|||
|
10 May 2008, 21:32 |
|
|
asmrox
Im not using visual studio, ive tried to download time ago it but... well i had to reinstall my windows after it.
I hate linux cuz of 1-command-downlaod-install, i prefer clean source file(s) with STANDARD c syntax compilable by dumb gcc (or pure asm opcode in .asm where i dont have to analyse macros just port to compiler). And i dont wana be programmer, assembly is the future, sooner or later ill write code in it faster and better than anyone in delphi. Train, train and more train. about the `dll`, explain me, please: LibTomCrypt is a portable ISO C cryptographic library not even a word about compiling... But okay, its dll. Lets reverse engeneer makefile now: there should be -o <dllname>.dll and --shared options ctrl+f -shared > 0 found, okay ctrl_f -o -o src/ciphers/aes/aes_enc.o well, whats the '.o' file? '.s0' = shared object on unix, '.dll' shared on win, but '.o'? and thats all of pure -o's what can i do next? lest go to \libtomcrypt-1.16\src, and \pk\rsa. wow, its finally rsa. Quote: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Pulpit\libtomcrypt-1.16\src\pk\rsa>gcc * rsa_decrypt_key.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_encrypt_key.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_export.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_exptmod.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_free.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_import.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_make_key.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_sign_hash.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory rsa_verify_hash.c:11:22: tomcrypt.h: No such file or directory great ^^ why not define data from headers in .c files? I DONT KNOW! YOU TELL ME! after moving headers from ../../headers to same directory: <here i considered writing additional program to redirect stderr> Quote: In file included from rsa_decrypt_key.c:11: all /h files are in same directory as am 1, and .c files. As far as you can see compiling this shit is pure fun! WHY DO THEY DO THAT? WHY THEY MAKE MY LIFE HARDER? shift deleted with bang, googling advapi now... |
|||
|
10 May 2008, 23:07 |
|
|
vid
Quote: And i dont wana be programmer, assembly is the future, sooner or later ill write code in it faster and better than anyone in delphi. Train, train and more train. You'll never write years worth of code faster than someone will download good library and learn how to use it. And if you write it fastly, it will be much inferior to code that was polished over years, like libtomcrypt. Quote: great ^^ why not define data from headers in .c files? I DONT KNOW! YOU TELL ME! 1. Things in .h files are not data definitions 2. Because those are shared in multiple .c files - doing it your way would be duplication, eg. stupid and hell to maintain Quote: As far as you can see compiling this shit is pure fun! Because they want to support more than single platform / single OS / single compiler, and because they want maintainable code. Way how that project is done is pretty much "industry standard" for portable ANSI C code. Yes, it is hell confusing first time, but you really should learn it, if you want to work in anything serious. |
|||
|
11 May 2008, 00:40 |
|
|
AlexP
You should use the API for secure RSA
|
|||
|
13 May 2008, 12:53 |
|
|
asmrox
i hape crypto~
it can be cracked, matter of time. But i need to talk to server in rsa -.- send just 1 packet with encrypted login/password. (i have the public key) |
|||
|
13 May 2008, 15:39 |
|
|
vid
Quote: it can be cracked, matter of time. every encryption with can be cracked if you have enough time  |
|||
|
13 May 2008, 16:10 |
|
|
revolution
vid wrote:
|
|||
|
13 May 2008, 16:36 |
|
|
vid
Quote: Except for quantum cryptography ermmm... why not? Never heard about this... |
|||
|
13 May 2008, 20:43 |
|
|
revolution
vid wrote:
|
|||
|
14 May 2008, 03:02 |
|
|
vid
next time before using this joke, check it first: http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+cryptography+unbreakable
 |
|||
|
14 May 2008, 08:30 |
|
|
revolution
Next time before refuting such a claim, check it first
the first link proposed by google wrote: In the article, published in the journal IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, the authors propose a change that solves the problem. |
|||
|
14 May 2008, 08:55 |
|
|
AlexP
Good luck with quantum, last I checked it was in a Sci-Fi with a processor that had a heck of a Tb/s bit rate, that's all I remember. Have fun with that!
|
|||
|
14 May 2008, 12:53 |
|
|
revolution
AlexP wrote: Good luck with quantum, last I checked it was in a Sci-Fi with a processor that had a heck of a Tb/s bit rate, that's all I remember. Have fun with that! |
|||
|
14 May 2008, 13:56 |
|
|
vid
Looks like I am too much behind... for what practical purpose are quantum computers used now?
|
|||
|
14 May 2008, 20:04 |
|
|
Vasilev Vjacheslav
what about miracl? or libigo from witeg?
|
|||
|
14 May 2008, 20:20 |
|
|
revolution
vid wrote: Looks like I am too much behind... for what practical purpose are quantum computers used now? |
|||
|
15 May 2008, 02:38 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|