Re: HASH_* and Sign APIs

2006-11-10 Thread Wan-Teh Chang
Wei Shao wrote: Wan-Teh Chang wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, HASH_* APIs provide a good wrapper for the hashing algorithms. But secsign.c does not use any of these. It instead calls create/update/end directly on the hash context. Would it be better to use HASH_* APIs in secsign.c? We co

Re: HASH_* and Sign APIs

2006-11-07 Thread Wei Shao
Wan-Teh Chang wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi, > > > > HASH_* APIs provide a good wrapper for the hashing algorithms. > > But secsign.c does not use any of these. It instead calls > > create/update/end directly on the hash context. > > > > Would it be better to use HASH_* APIs in secsign.

Re: HASH_* and Sign APIs

2006-10-23 Thread Wan-Teh Chang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, HASH_* APIs provide a good wrapper for the hashing algorithms. But secsign.c does not use any of these. It instead calls create/update/end directly on the hash context. Would it be better to use HASH_* APIs in secsign.c? We could use HASH_* APIs in secsign.c. Per

HASH_* and Sign APIs

2006-10-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, HASH_* APIs provide a good wrapper for the hashing algorithms. But secsign.c does not use any of these. It instead calls create/update/end directly on the hash context. Would it be better to use HASH_* APIs in secsign.c? Wei ___ dev-tech-crypto