11:49 a.m.
For pyoidc I moved from Cryptodome to Cryptography a while ago.
Working with the crypto experts at Google doing the new OIDC libraries Cryptography was
the only choice.
On 2 Aug 2018, at 10:03, Steffen Klemer <klemer at
dfn.de> wrote:
Am Do, 02.08.2018 um 10:42 schrieb Ivan Kanakarakis
<ivan.kanak at gmail.com>:
— Roland
The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make
enough of them, it's considered to be your style.
-Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 23:28, Leif Johansson
<leifj at sunet.se> wrote:
I was looking at it yesterday and while I like the idea (and its
not-home-grown crypto using openssl as its backend) of the cryptography
module better compared to cryptodome, it seemed to lack some features.
Notably I couldn't find any mentioning of a high-level function for
signing something else then certificates -- everything asymmetric above
the 'hazmat'-layer just seemed to be concerned with key handling.
That besides both projects seem to be vital. Crpytodome seems to rely
mostly on one person, cryptography on 3 or 4. The latter is Apache OR
BSD licensed, cryptodome mixed BSD+Public Domain (and one submodule
Apache).
Overall I tended to go a bit deeper into Cryptography and see how hard
a port would be. Cryptodome-porting should be more or less free as it's
also a fork of pycrypto.
Any ideas before I go on?
Steffen
--
DFN-Verein Steffen Klemer
Alexanderplatz 1 +49 30 884299 307
10178 Berlin klemer at dfn.de
Fax: 030 88 42 99 370
http://www.dfn.de
_______________________________________________
Idpy-discuss mailing list
Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se
https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss I just kept it around because I've never had
time to deal with it
but clearly you are right and we should switch to cryptodome.
pysaml2 has switched to pyca/cyptography.
Should we try to use that for pyXMLSecurity too?
Has anyone gone into a comparison and evaluation?