[PATCH] libmd: Use alternative MD5 implementation
cynt6007 at vandals.uidaho.edu
Mon Dec 17 04:20:32 UTC 2012
Hi Sebastian and Ralf,
I don't really have an opinion, but for what it's worth md5 isn't considered secure...
Although many legacy applications do require it for compatibility...
From: rtems-devel-bounces at rtems.org [rtems-devel-bounces at rtems.org] on behalf of Ralf Corsepius [ralf.corsepius at rtems.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:06 PM
To: Sebastian Huber
Cc: rtems-devel at rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libmd: Use alternative MD5 implementation
On 12/16/2012 06:09 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> This implementation has less license restrictions.
The issue with md5 is not licenses, it's security and portability.
That said, your proposal to me qualifies as replacing a widely used and
heavily tested version with one from the zoo of exotic versions that are
That said, unless you can provide evidence of the version you are
proposing has a history of being used for many years in major OSes or
applications, I am very opposed to letting this code in.
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel at rtems.org
More information about the devel