Is there a nice cryptography library for Windows which I'll be able to compile without mingw/cygwin?
CryptoAPI is dildos because you have to dick around with KeyContainers and ServiceProviders and other ENTERPRISE bullshit.
At least it's native and comes with the OS.
I don't use CryptoAPI much myself. I just find a public domain/BSD/MIT (or something opensource, but not too restrictive like GPL) implementation of the algo I need and use that. Depending on the language, crypto libraries may already be provided in some form or the other, or you can just use OpenSSL if you want something intergrated.
>>11
The OS is irrelevant. How well(efficient) crypto can be implemented depends on the physical architecture, much less on the OS. It can be implemented in just about anything - it's just simple math. Windows has its own native crypto services, which aren't that bad, but nothing forces you to use them if you don't want to or you prefer using some other crypto libs.
>>13
Why can't they just do something right the first time instead of deprecating APIs and replacing them with APIs that will be deprecated right away and supported for all eternity?
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 16:47
>>15
Because, the Unix/Posix Way is the One True Way, everything else is doomed to failure. It looks like this CNG API is pretty much the same as OpenSSL, just different identifier names.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 17:39
>>13
But it doesn't work with XP, does it? I can't use it, then.
I didn't actually look closely into the CryptoAPI documentation; but you need to install certificates and key stores and shit like that, right? I shouldn't do that if I'm writing an application which should make as few changes to the system as possible.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 17:55
>>17
Why are you still targeting XP? XP is dead. Force your users to upgrade.
Do Linux developers still make sure their shit works on Redhat Linux 7.1 from 2001? No. That's retarded.
>>18
Over a half of home PC users still use XP. Did you read the post where I said that I'm targeting Windows because it's the best platform for hosting a botnet? I can't very well display a message box saying You need a newer version of the Windows® Operating System to be a part of my botnet. Please upgrade and then double-click this executable again , can I?
Though I'm sure that there are people who would upgrade because of that.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 18:19
>>19
If you're such a 1337 hacker, then you should be able to write your own cryptographic ciphers, and optimize them by writing it in assembly language using SSE2 intrinsics.
>>20
If I were, why would I need a botnet of my own? I'd just hijack someone's!
I just might, but I failed horribly at implementing SHA-256 using the Wikipedia article (in that the digest zero-length data came out wrong), so I wouldn't even try doing it with assembly (and I'm not sure to what degree it's portable).
>>25
Now listen here, jerkface. I meant to install the libraries side-by-side (SXS), this is a technology from Microsoft Windows.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-16 10:22
>>26 libraries side-by-side (SXS), this is a technology from Microsoft Windows.
Oh wow. I wonder what ENTERPRISE terms one could devise for other common words and phrases.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-16 10:23
I've just moved to Ubuntu. Any good advice for a fuckwit?
>>41
Are you implying that having to install KeyContainers and certificates in CertificateStores, then having to contact CryptographicServiceProviders so that you'd acquire a CryptographicContext and so on, isn't enterprise-quality?
Or that making up buzzwords (such as SXS for side-by-side, SAAS for software-as-a-service, and all design patterns) isn't a sign of enterprise either?
>>21 I failed horribly at implementing SHA-256 using the Wikipedia article (in that the digest zero-length data came out wrong) Since I know that you care, /prog/, I just wanted to tell you that the only mistake I did was using 0xFF instead of 0x80 when padding the data with a single bit followed by zeros. I feel a little stupid, but other than that my code works. This is good because I will no longer be required to turn in my /prog/ badge.