> I have been pointed that I did not formulate the question clearly.
> Would you prefer to have a static ENGINE thing built into the LibreSSL,
> providing 100% API compatibility with original ccgost implementation,
> or it would be better to have a cleaner well-integrated cryptosuite?
As already r
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
> wrote:
> > I have started looking into GOST (re)implementation for LibreSSL.
> > I would like to know, how much do you want for LibreSSL to mimic
> > the OpenSSL behaviour.
>
> I have been pointed that I did not formulate the question
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
wrote:
> I have started looking into GOST (re)implementation for LibreSSL.
> I would like to know, how much do you want for LibreSSL to mimic
> the OpenSSL behaviour.
I have been pointed that I did not formulate the question clearl
Hello,
I have started looking into GOST (re)implementation for LibreSSL.
I would like to know, how much do you want for LibreSSL to mimic
the OpenSSL behaviour.
Originally (thanks CryptoCom) GOST algorithms were implemented
as a separate OpenSSL engine (to ease certification, to ease
replacing cc
