<br><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Last I heard, AMK was no longer maintaining pycrypto, and a number of<br>people have found weird issues with it and were generally uncertain
<br>of the correctness of the implemented crypto.<br><br>> The pycrypto API is is very nice. But if we were to consider it<br>> for the standard library I'd prefer it just link against OpenSSL<br>> rather than use its own C implementations and just leave platforms
<br>> without ssl without any crypto.<br><br>That's one option, although there seems to be some FUD surrounding<br>OpenSSL licensing and its interactions with the GPL:<br><br> <<a href="http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html">
http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html</a>><br><br>It's also a standalone library, and it strikes me as much nicer to<br>just have Python provide the crypto functionality out of the box. So,<br>if we built an API atop the (public domain) LibTomCrypt code that
<br>mimicked that of pycrypto, would anyone object to getting that kind<br>of thing into the Python source distribution?</blockquote><div><br>I'm +1 for that. LibTomCrypt is a great place to start.<br></div><br>-gps<br>
</div><br>