News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS. Parent comment

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by mbanzi on Thursday November 03, 2016 @10:17AM (#12864087)
you should have read the rest before commenting. This is ideal for embedded targets and C is the best way to write a truly portable library for these small targets. Consider that a lot of embedded code is designed to avoid mallocs() altogether and that helps a lot.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by sp332 on Thursday November 03, 2016 @10:36AM (#12864239)
Having a C binding doesn't mean you have to implement the bulk of the code in C.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by reinar on Thursday November 03, 2016 @01:52PM (#12866254)
For many embedded systems anything that has 'bindings' is bloatware.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by dbaupp on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:31PM (#12868632)
Some platforms only have (bug-ridden, poorly supported) C compilers available: i.e. there's no other language to write in, let alone bind to.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by Florin_Andrei on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:23PM (#12868560)
Have you ever programmed a microcontroller?

(And yes, it would actually be nice to have reliable crypto on a micro-c.)

[ Parent | on HN ]