You've built the debug version of cryptlib rather than the release version.
The debug version is intended for people developing cryptlib, and provides
extended diagnostic and debugging information that isn't present in a normal
release. See "Debug vs.Release Versions of cryptlib" in the manual for more
- Why do I get an "Assertion failed" when I use cryptlib?
- Does cryptlib run on CPU X/embedded OS Y?
- Do you have any performance measurements for algorithm x?
- How much RAM/flash does cryptlib require?
- Can I read keys from PFX/PKCS #12 files?
- Can I read keys from the Windows registry/CryptoAPI
blobs/the Netscape cert database/OpenSSL PEM files/etc?
- How do I read a key from a crypto device such as a smart
card or a keyset when I don't know the label for the key?
- When will cryptlib support OAEP? RSA-PSS?
- Does cryptlib support AADS, CDMF, CMC, CMMF, CPM, CRS, CSVP,
DHPOP, DCS, DVCS, ICAP, OCDP, QC, RMP, SCVP, SDSI, SPKI, VMP, ... ?
- Does cryptlib have FIPS 140 certification?
- Does cryptlib handle base64/MIME encoding/RFC 822/SMTP/POP3/IMAP messaging?
This question has two answers depending on the intent of the question. If
it's "can cryptlib run on CPU type X or OS type Y?" then the
answer is as follows:
cryptlib runs on virtually all CPUs and operating system platforms, however
there are some obscure embedded OSes that it hasn't yet been ported to,
generally because they're non-mainstream enough that access to a development
system and/or documentation is anything form difficult to near-impossible.
cryptlib has been designed for easy portability to any OS, targetting new
systems hasn't proven much of a problem in the past. Anyone requiring a port
is strongly encouraged to involve the cryptlib developers in the
process, since past experience has shown that this leads to a significant
reduction in effort in performing the port (a typical example was several
months vs.2 days to get it running on a particular proprietary embedded
If the question is "can cryptlib run on our particular system?" then that
depends on what memory and CPU resources are still available once the rest of
your code is installed and running, and what it is you want to do with
cryptlib. While the answer to the abstract question is invariably "yes", in
order to provide an answer for a specific system and configuration it's
necessary to know exactly what's available. Question 4
contains more detail on this.
It's impossible to answer this question because it depends on the system it's
being run on, the compiler being used, the algorithm, the key size (for
public-key algorithms), the fact that cryptlib is in some cases performing a
lot of other work in the background (e.g. data encapsulation or certificate
processing), and a variety of other factors. In general on a modern system
the raw performance of most of the block ciphers and hash functions is tens to
hundreds of megabytes per second, and the raw time for public-key operations
is a few milliseconds. With cryptlib hardware assist, the processing speed is
limited mostly by the I/O bus speed.
These are representative times. If you need a definitive figure for your
exact hardware, OS, compiler, and application, run the code and see.
As with the previous question, this depends on the build options that you use
when you're compiling the code and what you want to do. Since cryptlib can be
extensively customised, the memory usage can vary quite significantly based on
which options you enable. As a general rule of thumb, if you're implementing
something like SSL/TLS, SSH, S/MIME, or PGP, cryptlib requires an absolute
minimum of 128kB RAM, 256kB of flash, and about 100 DMIPS of performance
unless you don't mind waiting around for awhile for crypto operations to
complete. If you want to do anything involving certificates, double the flash
This format has had some
security problems, as well as being a very
format for storing keys. Because of these security concerns, cryptlib will
not import or export its keys to files in this format since it in effect
constitutes a security compromise of the private key. Instead, it uses the
PKCS #15 format, which is an enhanced key and certificate storage format
without the problems of PKCS #12.
(Actually there is partial support for PKCS #12 present via the code module
keyset/dbxpk12.c, if you really want PKCS #12 support you can add it by
completing the code in the module. Note that there are several incompatible
versions of the PKCS #12/PFX standard, as well as many different
interpretations of how to implement any particular version of PKCS #12, and
finally since the standard leaves many things undefined, vendors have invented
their own ways of doing things that are (needless to say) again incompatible.
As a result, it's quite possible for half a dozen different vendors to create
fully-compliant PKCS #12 files that can't be read by any other implementation.
You'll need to handle this chaos yourself if you decide to go with PKCS
These are proprietary/undocumented formats that conform to no known standard.
Because of their nature, they are tied to a particular vendor or platform, and
can't be read by cryptlib (or anything else).
The underlying key storage system, either a disk file, smart card, HSM, or
crypto token, identifies keys using labels or some similar form of identifier.
In order to fetch a key from a keyset or device, you need to provide a label
to identify the key that you want to fetch (keys always have labels, no matter
how they're generated or which application generated them). If you can't
identify which key you want, then neither can cryptlib.
New crypto algorithms and mechanisms will be supported in cryptlib when they
become generally adopted in implementations of security standards like
SSL/TLS, S/MIME, ssh, and PGP. Without this general support, there's little
use for them since absolutely nothing would be able to make use of them even
if they were present in cryptlib (that is, any data produced using these
algorithms would be unusable by any other implementation). Note also that:
- Because these new mechanisms are barely supported by anything, it will be
difficult to impossible to use them with crypto hardware such as HSMs or smart
- The security benefits of using some of these new techniques is
questionable. For example, standard PKCS #1 1.5 is secure when used properly
(that is, there's no real security benefit to using OAEP). Protocols like TLS
and S/MIME simply include a note about using PKCS #1 1.5 securely, rather than
requiring a move to OAEP or Simple-RSA.
- If you use some new mechanism, there's a risk that you'll be stuck with
an orphaned mechanism if something else comes into fashion. SET is stuck with
a version of OAEP that nothing else uses any more. OAEP has itself been
overtaken by things like Simple-RSA.
Standards groups are constantly inventing new standards. Many will disappear
without trace, some will be implemented by a few vendors (often in an
incompatible manner) and ignored by the rest, some will be so complex and
difficult to interpret that they won't be viable for years (if ever), and a
very small number will survive and prove useful. The cryptlib developers keep
a close eye on the standards situation and will support those that serve a
useful purpose and have good industry support (note that being hyped in the
trade press does not constitute good industry support). The intention behind
taking this cautious approach is to avoid having users locked into a collection
of orphaned and legacy protocols that have very little support elsewhere.
Since cryptlib is available in full source code form, you're welcome to
implement any particular protocol you require yourself.
cryptlib was designed from the outset to be certifiable at the highest FIPS
140 level, level 4. However, each certification is specific to a particular
hardware and software platform and a particular FIPS 140 level, so there's no
such thing as a generic "FIPS 140 certification" (although vendor marketing
often confuses the issue). If you need to use a FIPS 140 certified toolkit,
we'd be happy to get the certification done for you at your required level and
with the required hardware and software combination, please contact us to
discuss the details and cost involved.
Mailer functions such as base64/transfer-encoding and sending and receiving
mail are an MUA/MTA issue, while cryptlib is a crypto toolkit and not a
mailer. The manual contains further information on interfacing it with
various MUAs/MTA's. In particular, MIME processing and base64 en- and
decoding require an enormous amount of functionality to handle mailers that
mangle or rewrite content, change line lengths and terminators, substitute
characters in text, escape or otherwise alter values, and so on. This is what
MIME-processing agents like mailers do. cryptlib is not a mailer or
MIME-processing engine, but will accept content coming from a MIME-processing
engine and work with that.