转子更换 [英] rotor replacement

问题描述

我看到转子被拆除了2.4并且文档说使用AES模块

单独提供...是否有一个标准模块可以运行相同或者

一个AES模块工作方式相似但加密效果更好？


欢呼，

reed

解决方案

" Reed L. O''Brien" <重** @ intersiege.com>写道：

我看到转子被拆除了2.4并且文档说使用单独提供的AES模块......是否有一个标准模块可以运行相似或者是一个AES模块但是效果相似但加密效果更好？

如果你的意思是分发中的模块，答案是否定的，因为政治原因。


网上有许多AES模块。大多数都是C />
扩展模块，这意味着你需要编译它们，如果你想要广泛部署它们，你需要为每个目标平台提供二进制文件。

有一些纯Python的AES实现，但它们很慢。


这里是用Python编写的，使用内置sha1模块的东西/>
作为加密原语。它的安全性应该比转子更好，并且对于大多数应用来说，性能是合理的：

http://www.nightsong.com/phr/crypto/p3.py

Paul Rubin写道：

" Reed L. O''Brien" <重** @ intersiege.com>写道：

我看到转子被拆除了2.4并且文档说使用单独提供的AES模块......是否有一个标准模块可以相同或者
一个类似但有更好加密的AES模块？

如果你的意思是分发中的模块，答案是否定的，因为政治原因。

......我也错过了转子模块，遗憾的是有些有用的东西

被警告，现在没有更换插件就被删除了。


我明白这是因为转子不安全，但你提到政治。其他有用的模块是否会受到政治影响？


转子移除的政治原因究竟是什么？


我可能会补充说rotormodule的源码仍然很容易获得

并且可以作为Python-2.4的扩展而简单地编译。

Python社区是否对已移除模块的来源持有立场？

-

Robin Becker

Robin Becker< ro *** @ SPAMREMOVEjessikat.fsnet.co.uk>写道：

转子移除的政治原因究竟是什么？


有些国家/地区有关于加密软件的法律（针对某些出口，进口或使用的b
组合）。 Python维护者并没有想要处理可能从

开发的想象的法律麻烦，包括分发中的良好加密功能。然后就变得很明显，同样想象中的麻烦也可能降到转子

模块，所以这就被删除了。

我可能会补充说rotormodule的源代码仍然很容易获得，并且可以作为Python-2.4的扩展而简单地编译。是否Python社区对已移除模块的来源采取了立场？

这些仍可免费分发，但我建议不要这样做
带转子模块的
除非您绝对需要它用于某些

互操作性目的。否则，这是不安全的，不应该使用
。我发布的例程旨在作为转子模块的简单替换，不依赖于C编译器

并且相当安全。如果您不介意使用C扩展，

可以使用各种AES模块，还有更好的软件包，例如

mxCrypto。

I see rotor was removed for 2.4 and the docs say use an AES module
provided separately... Is there a standard module that works alike or
an AES module that works alike but with better encryption?

cheers,
reed

解决方案

"Reed L. O''Brien" <re**@intersiege.com> writes:

I see rotor was removed for 2.4 and the docs say use an AES module
provided separately... Is there a standard module that works alike or
an AES module that works alike but with better encryption?

If you mean a module in the distribution, the answer is no, for
political reasons.

There are a number of AES modules available on the net. Most are C
extension modules which means you need to compile them, and if you
want to deploy them widely, you need binaries for every target platform.
There''s a few pure-Python AES implementations but they are verrry slow.

Here''s something written in Python that uses the built-in sha1 module
as a crypto primitive. Its security should be better than rotor and
performance is reasonable for most applications:

http://www.nightsong.com/phr/crypto/p3.py

Paul Rubin wrote:

"Reed L. O''Brien" <re**@intersiege.com> writes:

I see rotor was removed for 2.4 and the docs say use an AES module
provided separately... Is there a standard module that works alike or
an AES module that works alike but with better encryption?

If you mean a module in the distribution, the answer is no, for
political reasons.

......I''m also missing the rotor module and regret that something useful
was warned about and now removed with no plugin replacement.

I had understood that this was because rotor was insecure, but you
mention politics. Are other useful modules to suffer from politics?

What exactly are/were the political reasons for rotor removal?

I might add that the source for rotormodule is still easily obtainable
and can be compiled trivially as an extension for Python-2.4. Does the
Python community take a position on the sources of removed modules?
--
Robin Becker

Robin Becker <ro***@SPAMREMOVEjessikat.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

What exactly are/were the political reasons for rotor removal?
Some countries have laws about cryptography software (against some
combination of export, import, or use). The Python maintainers didn''t
want to deal with imagined legal hassles that might develop from
including good crypto functions in the distribution. Then it became
obvious that the same imagined hassles could also befall the rotor
module, so that was removed.
I might add that the source for rotormodule is still easily obtainable
and can be compiled trivially as an extension for Python-2.4. Does the
Python community take a position on the sources of removed modules?

Those are still free to distribute, but I''d advise against doing so
with the rotor module unless you absolutely need it for some
interoperability purpose. Otherwise, it''s insecure and should not be
used. The routine I posted was intended as a straightforward
replacement for the rotor module that doesn''t depend on C compilers
and is reasonably secure. If you don''t mind using C extensions,
there''s various AES modules available, plus fancier packages like
mxCrypto.

这篇关于转子更换的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！