3 ms·
Who is this person and why are they qualified to write this library? AFAIK, Stanford is generally accepted to have the most reliable JS crypto library, though
by dguido 14y ago
Who is this person and why are they qualified to write this library?
AFAIK, Stanford is generally accepted to have the most reliable JS crypto library, though all of them are broken as all hell and not usable in anything but toy applications.
https://crypto.stanford.edu/sjcl/ https://crypto.stanford.edu/sjcl/
- Cyranix 14y agoCan you clarify "broken"? In this context there is a world of difference between "inaccurately implemented" and "slow".
- hdevalence 14y agoThere's a nice article here: http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ that explains some of the issues with JavaScript-based cryptosystems.
- saurik 14y agoNote: these arguments only apply to JavaScript in a browser (and at that point, apply to virtually any client-side system attempting to somehow protect information from being snooped on by the server that dynamically provides the code to execute on the client <- an idea that should have been preposterous from the start ;P).
- Hupo 14y agoWhile it obviously makes no sense to use client-side crypto for verification, there can still be use for things like MD5 and SHA-1 on the client side. I have a script that does SHA-1 hashing for images fetched via XHR, for example (which is used for reverse image searching purposes). Seeing this, I guess I should do some benchmarking and see whether it gives better speeds than my current implementation (and also look for any other options and test those too).