Talk:Comparison of cryptography libraries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of cryptography libraries article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation List‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 29 September 2014 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Software: Computing List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptography: Computer science List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Bouncy Castle validated and certified

I was trying to update this page to clarify that Bouncy Castle 1.0.0 (latest version is 1.0.1) has been validated to FIPS 140-2 and has been certified. I am not good enough with the markup used on wikipedia to fix this tho. Can someone help? Source: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/1401val2016.htm#2768 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarkj (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section for Lightweight Block Ciphers

Lightweight Block Ciphers with ARX design have become increasingly popular. The ciphers have a lot of interest for resource constrained devices and Internet of Things. The ciphers include CHAM, LEA, Simon and Speck. It might be a good idea to add a new section for modern Lightweight Block Ciphers designs.

Addition of Tink?

I don't have time to add it now, but I think Tink should be included on this page: https://github.com/google/tink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.193.6 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of OpenSSL forks? (BoringSSL and LibreSSL?)

I think we should add BoringSSL and LibreSSL, even though they are forks of OpenSSL and don't have their own articles (even wikipedia redirects boringssl to openssl). They are being used for real applications, and have become valid and popular alternatives to OpenSSL. Not having them in the table gives the false impression that they are not comparable to the other libraries. Chibby0ne (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSSL has no support for Blake2-MAC

It is documented in the Master branch, but not in 1.1.1, and inspection of the change log (and the 1.1.1 source code) confirms this.

Thus it *will* be supported - but isn't yet. 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.246.66 (talk)

Crypto Library and FIPS 140-2 Certification

The information provided for Crypto Library is inaccurate and misleading. For example, Open SSL is not certified as standalone. It is certified integrated with RedHat, Ubuntu IBM, etc., etc., It is not possible to test a library, you to run it on some OS.

Every Crypto system certified under the NIST CMVP and passers gets a validation certificate number and it is published in https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules/search. which is publicly accessible and searchable database.

If there is not certificate number, it is not validated. Open SSL search result did not show a certificate. Therefore Open SSL library itself is not certified. Instead,Opel SSL integrated with, for example is the following integrations are certified.

3667 TrendMicro Inc. Deep Discovery Analyzer OpenSSL Cryptographic Module Software 06/04/2020 3657 Metaswitch Networks Ltd OpenSSL Cryptographic Module for Perimeta SBC Software 05/26/2020 3638 Super Micro Computer, Inc. Supermicro FIPS Object Module for OpenSSL Software 03/31/2020 3622 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu 18.04 OpenSSL Cryptographic Module Software 02/25/2020

Whomevercrted this Wikipedia page need to correct the information, because it misleads lots of people.

In cryptography the devil is in the detail. In cryptographic security you either secure or insecure (1 or 0). There is no such thing as 1/0! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C00:2E80:B07C:2EB4:9FB3:3690 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]