rfc:mcrypt-viking-funeral
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
rfc:mcrypt-viking-funeral [2016/03/15 16:46] – sarciszewski | rfc:mcrypt-viking-funeral [2016/03/15 17:26] – sarciszewski | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===== Backward Incompatible Changes ===== | ===== Backward Incompatible Changes ===== | ||
- | Any cryptography code that depends on mcrypt will need to be refactored against openssl. This isn't as difficult as it sounds, provided you're using a trustworthy cipher (e.g. MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_128). Based on [[https:// | + | Any cryptography code that depends on mcrypt will need to be refactored against openssl. This isn't as difficult as it sounds, provided you're using a trustworthy cipher (e.g. MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_128). Based on [[https:// |
* GOST | * GOST | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* XTEA | * XTEA | ||
* Enigma | * Enigma | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is an acceptable loss: Most of the ciphers in the list above should not be used in new software anyway. Most cryptography experts would consider their inclusion in any software written in 2016 to be a code smell and indicative of a bad protocol design. Some of them (e.g. Enigma) are outright insecure and should not be used at all. | ||
===== Proposed PHP Version(s) ===== | ===== Proposed PHP Version(s) ===== |
rfc/mcrypt-viking-funeral.txt · Last modified: 2017/09/22 13:28 by 127.0.0.1