Re: Secure Sockets
- From: "Chris Becke" <chris.becke@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:19:16 +0200
"Alun Jones" <alun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eQBPhn0vHHA.2288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You have to find a way to deal with crypto problems as opposed to
networking problems. That's one big reason why you won't find many class
libraries designed to make secure sockets look "just like" regular
sockets. There are a number of functions that you will need to do that
have no socket equivalent (for instance, closing the SSL session without
closing the TCP connection).
hmmm. In theory a SSL implementation needs to support features like that. In
practice however, there doesnt seem to be that much expense in binding the
ssl session with the tcp session. If either one closes, close the other, and
re-open from scratch.
What I personally find *really* tragic is how easy SSL is to do on Windows
CE. A call to setsockopt before calling connect is all it takes. Ans a call
to WSAIoctl so you can validate the server cert.
I really dont understand why ssl on regular Win32 needs to be harder than
that.
.
- References:
- Re: Secure Sockets
- From: Alun Jones
- Re: Secure Sockets
- Prev by Date: Problems with AppData on Vista.
- Next by Date: Re: Problems with AppData on Vista.
- Previous by thread: Re: Secure Sockets
- Next by thread: Cant get SACL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|