Embedded AES library

Ahem, the algorithm is known ...

Rene

--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Source code is freely available. Why pay? The C implementations should be able to compile with most embedded compilers.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

What platform you using?

Probably isn't of help, but some of the Coldfire processors have built in cryptographic accelerators which support AES .

D

Unless you have alot of spare CPU cycles you are probably going to want t find a native implementation for your processor. Encryption algorithms ca be fairly processor intensive and a 'generic' implementation in C is goin to always be slow.

There are some whitepapers on implementing AES for microprocessor available. Try Googling for them, I don't have the URL's handy.

Brian

The issue here is deadlines. I have no time to implement and verify my own version.

--Shafik

Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

Please don't top-post, especially in technical newsgroups. Your answer belongs after, or intermixed with, the *snipped* material to which you reply. See the links in my sig.

--
 Some informative links:
   news:news.announce.newusers
   http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
   http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
   http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
   http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Yes, do not top post.

We don't want to confuse those who want to complain rather then help.

We try to advise people who are doing something wrong. Do you let your children ignore all normal behavioural rules?

--
 "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
                           -- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
 "There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
                                             -- Thomas Matthews

Oooooo - beware of what you complain about - people may well use it against you later.

I guess you're aware of

This states "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay."

I noted that your signature is 6 lines long (excluding sig separator), which is 50% more than the RFC's recommended 4 lines.

In fact, one of the links in your sig links also contains

which states: "If you want to have a signature, keep in mind that there are rules for these, too: first of all, a signature should not be any longer than four lines."

You're not suggesting a position of "do as I say, not as I do?" are you? ;)

Okay, maybe I'm being rather petty - and I'd probably agree - but I also find many of the people who complain about top posting are also being petty - in many cases, I find it's easier to read a top posted entry quickly than a bottom posted one. I agree though, that also, in many cases it can cause a few problems.

My point is though - if you're going to start telling people off for breach of netiquette, then you should ensure that you're not breaching it either.

D

... snip ...

... snip ...

I fail to see how you consider that "telling people off". It is a request, and a fairly concise statement of normal practice.

--
 "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
                           -- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
 "There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
                                             -- Thomas Matthews

So should you. You should wrap your lines a little earlier.

Fun read:

You didn't mean that, did you? That is not an argument by 2006 any more. It sure was by 198*. Even if you paid by per Traffic, it's rather an argument for a news server operator but not a user.

You could well take a newsreader that removes the sig right away. So you do not have to bother. I rather bother about people which do not separate their sig correctly with "-- " (note the blank). (which is normative AFAIC)

You read the first paragraph of the link you posted? " This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. " It's not called a _Guidline_ for nothing.

It sure is a good compromise but at the same time it is not normative; flames are not acceptable against it. If it were normative it would be OK. Otherwise not.

If you were following the thread from the beginning it is OK. It makes more sense to intersperse the reply and the message with proper quotation.

As for me, I even dislike it in email.

So should you ;-) and separate your "D" signature properly. (OK... one letter is short... I admit that but like Jesus once said "The one of you without sin may throw the first stone".)

--
Johannes A. Frittum
You can have it:
Quick, Accurate, Inexpensive.
Pick two.

Granted, I agree that technically I should have (didn't consider my name/initial being a sig, but I guess technically it is!), although the sig break would be 4-5x longer than my sig....

Please, humbly accept my apologies for my mistakes (and for wrapping at

72 chars).

--
D  ;)

That's an argument. But as long as the content of the message is much longer than the signature the efficiency is still high. Just an "OK" with a 4x72 character signature is not so good.

The separation serves an additional purpose: Many newsreaders strip the sig automatically when replying to a message. Which makes it less work to do so.

Accepted :-)

--
Johannes A. Frittum
You can have it:
Quick, Accurate, Inexpensive.
Pick two.

Perhaps David would be happy if you just removed the sig separator from your netiquette block, thereby making it part of the message.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ