https

Rob Landley rob at landley.net
Thu Sep 7 18:07:23 UTC 2006


On Thursday 07 September 2006 4:19 am, Natanael Copa wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 09:27 +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:22:55AM +0200, Nawal nassr wrote:
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I try to use https with busybox instead of http.
> > >
> > >Is this possible?
> > 
> > Sure. Use something like stunnel.
> > 
> > PS: I'm pretty sure that you would have found that answer on your own..
> > HTH anyway
> 
> I think its a valid question.
> 
> stunnel takes space. I think mini_httpd with ssl support is smaller than
> busybox httpd + stunnel.

And that would mean that BusyBox depends on OpenSSL, which is 250k.  Not 
happening.

If you want to poke the dropbear guy to add stunnel support based on the copy 
of libtomcrypt he's already got, that would be cool.

> I think thats was the reson we choosed to use 
> mini_httpd instead of bb httpd. (it could be speed reasons too, or a
> combination - i dont remeber)

I wouldn't trust our current httpd as far as I could comfortably spit out a 
rat, but it's way down on my todo list...

> --
> Natanael Copa

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.



More information about the busybox mailing list