[Mono-dev] Mono Encryption

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

I would say, let us wrap up what you have, and then we can review the
implications that lacking some options might have.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Martin Thwaites <monoforum at my2cents.co.uk>
wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply Miguel.
>
> The crypto will be at least as secure as the existing MachineKey.Encrypt
> methods.  It's this page that I've not looked:
>
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.configuration.machinekeycompatibilitymode%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
>
> There appears to be some new configuration sections that can change the
> crypto methods used.  However, I've not looked into them so I'm not sure
> what they would change.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> On 16 October 2014 20:23, Miguel de Icaza <miguel at xamarin.com> wrote:
>
>> In general, a partial implementation is better than no implementation at
>> all.
>>
>> When it comes to crypto, things are a little bit different, and we need
>> to be more careful.
>>
>> What are the things that would not work from the spec?
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Martin Thwaites <
>> monoforum at my2cents.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> In my latest endeavour to get the aspnetwebstack functioning on mono,
>>> I've found that the MachineKey.Protect and Unprotect classes aren't
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> So, I've tried to put together something that would work, but not
>>> something that meets all the information supplied on MSDN page (e.g.
>>> framework options).
>>>
>>> My question is, I'm piggybacking on the MachineKey.Encrypt/Decrypt
>>> methods, is this sufficient to be accepted by the community?
>>>
>>> Here's the start of what I'm putting together.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/martinjt/mono/blob/mvc_fixes/mcs/class/System.Web/System.Web.Security/MachineKey.cs
>>>
>>> So, would a pull along these lines by accepted, or do all the
>>> requirements of the MSDN page need to be met?
>>>
>>> I'm not asking for a review of the pull right now as I need to check
>>> against coding standards, and add some more unit tests, just whether a half
>>> baked (but working) implementation is acceptable.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mono-devel-list mailing list
>>> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
>>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20141016/695080d3/attachment.html>