Status of bios-crypto packaging?

[Martin Langhoff]

Daniel, list,

what's the status of this? I had prepared a rough spec long ago (which
I use for the XS), but we have a couple of issues

- Desire to split off the 'audited' version of libtomcrypt -- the
split in itself is worthy, but ISTR we lost steam pushing it upstream
due to pushback on the 'audited' part? Do we have our package for
that?

- A pile of scripts used in XS that see a lot of churn -- I'm happy
to split those off to a -tools or -scripts subpackage.

cheers,

m

[Daniel Drake]

On 25 January 2011 21:42, Martin Langhoff  wrote:
> Daniel, list,
>
> what's the status of this?

I'll probably jump back on it after clearing out some more immediate projects.

I need to generate discussion around this to verify that I'm not
missing anything, but I had a thought that solves the crypto problem:
The auditing is only relevant for signature verification code,
therefore these tools could use the unaudited system libraries without
worry.

Daniel

[Martin Langhoff]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Daniel Drake  wrote:
> I need to generate discussion around this to verify that I'm not
> missing anything, but I had a thought that solves the crypto problem:
> The auditing is only relevant for signature verification code,
> therefore these tools could use the unaudited system libraries without
> worry.

Agreed... I guess it means the auditing was limited to input data handling.

As long as the different versions all agree on what's a valid sig and
what's not, we're ok! ;-)

m