[Pharo-project] SSL/HTTPS -SecureSocketStream/SSLSessionforPharo/Squeak and otherSmalltalk implementations
reefedjib at gmail.com
Thu May 12 17:58:36 CEST 2011
Sure. I cannot recall if I offered a stream interface or not. I could add
one and we could treat this and the SqueakSSL stream as provider impl to a
I'll comment more as I dig into it. I think I will fork a PharoSSL project,
since I know of at least one change in there.
From: Sven Van Caekenberghe
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:53 AM
To: Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project]
SSL/HTTPS -SecureSocketStream/SSLSessionforPharo/Squeak and otherSmalltalk
On 12 May 2011, at 16:38, Rob Withers wrote:
> It is a complete implementation with the bare minimum of supported
> algorithms, based on the spec. It is 100% in Smalltalk. It worked last
> time I tested in, several years ago. I will be able to tell you more this
> weekend. Others have been adding fixes/small features since, but not a
> lot - the base is pretty solid. I painstakingly followed the RFC for
> SSL - I think I read it over 20 times! The only issue would be algorithm
> support. I never benchmarked it, but seeing the difference in performance
> between Smlltalk crypto code like 3DES and plugin code, there is a
> SIGNIFICANT improvement (10x?). I do not know the state of Profiling
> under Pharo. If someone could help set me up, then I will profile it this
> weekend. I imagine both performance and certification were the reasons
> for SqueakSSL.
> There is also an SSH implementation I wrote that does dynamic window
> resizing on net latency.
It would be *very cool* if that code base could be ported to Pharo.
It is really quite impressive that you did all this from the spec.
I think that it would be possible to adjust my plan a bit, so that
eventually, my code would use either the native plugin or your Smalltalk
implementation. Then, we can compare features, functionality, bugs, etc..
Does that sound like a good idea ?
More information about the Pharo-project