«

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone should have any
TC++ v3.0 / BC++ v3.1, or DJGPP v2.03 code
for RSA implementation (or similar
public-key scheme(s)) - of either a module,
a library, or even a small program?

I have tried an old version of RSAREF
(I believe it was v1.0) with TC++ v3.0,
but it wouldn't compile.

I have tried Crypto++ Library v5.2.1, but
that one wouldn't compile either.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I'm not
very familiar with compiler flags or
other settings, of either Borland or DJGPP.

Regardless, my goal is to be able to write an
MSDOS-based utility that would offer
the following functions:

1.) Generate a large secret/public key pair;

2.) Encrypt / decrypt a file, using a secret/public key;

3.) Sign / verify a file, using a secret/public key.

Anything useful would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks in advance,
Luke

"Crypto Loko" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> I was wondering if anyone should have any
> TC++ v3.0 / BC++ v3.1, or DJGPP v2.03 code
> for RSA implementation (or similar
> public-key scheme(s)) - of either a module,
> a library, or even a small program?

Well, this group is about the things prescribed by the C standard and for
some reason the C language standard doesn't contain a single word about the
aforementioned compilers nor the software you're talking about. If you
posted a C problem (e.g. a bit of C code with your questions about its
correctness or behavior), it would be OK. But what you're coming with is
better be sought elsewhere, say on google.

> I have tried an old version of RSAREF
> (I believe it was v1.0) with TC++ v3.0,
> but it wouldn't compile.

Which means that either that particular code isn't portable enough or the
compiler isn't good enough. But we don't know since you haven't shown a bit
of the code, a real problem that is *in* the scope of the standard C, with
which you'd probably be pleased to help you out.

Alex

"Alexei A. Frounze" <> wrote in message
news:...
....
> Which means that either that particular code isn't portable enough or the
> compiler isn't good enough. But we don't know since you haven't shown a
bit
> of the code, a real problem that is *in* the scope of the standard C, with
> which

*we'd*

> probably be pleased to help you out.

Alex

Ok,

Thanks for the insight.

See, the reason I have NOT posted any code
in here was, that I didn't know how much of it
(at most) would be considered good manners.

Unless, of course, you were to tell me that posting
a block of code that, however long, is compilable
the first time out (simply via copy & paste to one's
IDE's editor) - and then by looking at the compiler's
messages (to be generated) one could tell what is
wrong with that code.

Crypto