[lwip-users] SSL / HTTPS above lwIP

[Walter Saegesser]

I have been working with lwIP for a few months now and it really works
fine.

Now I got the job to implement an HTTPS client, sending data to a server
on the internet periodically. As far as I understand this is not a
matter of the underlying TCP/IP stack. A SSL stack as well as an HTTP
client reside in the application layer, don't they? So there's no need
to switch to another TCP/IP stack, e.g. commercial Interniche? Or am I
wrong here?

Would there be a need to change the configuration of lwIP? Sorry, these
may all be silly questions, but I simply don't know.



The other question is what SSL stack to use. There are open source
solutions as CyaSSL or OpenSSL. (CyaSSL is claimed to be faster and up
to 20 times smaller than OpenSSL). And there are commercial stacks like
NicheStack SSL from Interniche or MatrixSSL from PeerSec.

If anyone has experience with this subject, any advice - DOs and DON'Ts
- would be appreciated a lot. Thanks in advance.



Walter



_______________________________________________
Walter Saegesser
Dipl.-Ing. (FH)

R&D - Software
Business Unit IMS - Line of Business Solar Inverter
_______________________________________________
Delta Renewable Energy Systems (Switzerland) AG
Burgerfeldstrasse 19, CH-8730 Uznach SG, Switzerland
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
***@delta-es.com <mailto:***@delta-es.com>
www.deltaenergysystems.com <http://www.deltaenergysystems.com/>
_______________________________________________



********************************************************************************************************************************
This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
[Delta Energy Systems]
********************************************************************************************************************************

[Joe Eykholt]

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:55:52 +0100
Subject: [lwip-users] SSL / HTTPS above lwIP
I have been working with lwIP for a few months now and it really works
fine.
Now I got the job to implement an HTTPS client, sending data to a server
on the internet periodically. As far as I understand this is not a
matter of the underlying TCP/IP stack. A SSL stack as well as an HTTP
client reside in the application layer, don't they?

Yes. At least, according to Wikipedia. Maybe it should be though of as
an application to the transport layer below it and as a transport to
the application above it. But I could be all wet.

So there's no need
to switch to another TCP/IP stack, e.g. commercial Interniche? Or am I
wrong here?

Nothing inherent in SSL would make that necessary, but depending on
which SSL implementation you choose, it may have more natural interfaces
with another TCP/IP stack.

Would there be a need to change the configuration of lwIP? Sorry, these
may all be silly questions, but I simply don't know.

I can't think of a need.

The other question is what SSL stack to use. There are open source
solutions as CyaSSL or OpenSSL. (CyaSSL is claimed to be faster and up
to 20 times smaller than OpenSSL). And there are commercial stacks like
NicheStack SSL from Interniche or MatrixSSL from PeerSec.
If anyone has experience with this subject, any advice - DOs and DON'Ts
- would be appreciated a lot. Thanks in advance.
Walter

I asked the same question here a while back and didn't see a response.
It's a very tough question to answer with any authority because there
are so many variables, depending on your application and environment.

I tried CyaSSL, PolarSSL, and matrixssl, they're all available both
open-source and commercially, and all will work over lwip. You have
to decide which is best for your needs, but for me matrixssl fit best.
I think it's code size is similar to or smaller than the others and
maybe its RAM usage is a bit less, and has smaller stack usage.

I liked its interfaces because they're all asynchronous, if I recall,
or at least can be used that way. I didn't want a separate thread for
each connection. I didn't benchmark them.

I still don't have a much experience with this subject, but thought
I'd offer this anyway. I'd be very interested in other opinions.

Cheers,
Joe

[Walter Saegesser]

Thanks, Joe.