<p>This master thesis consists of three parts. The first part contains a summary of what is needed to understand a X.509 parser that I have created, a discussion concerning the technical problems I encountered during the programming of this parser and a discussion concerning the final version of the parser. The second part concerns a comparison I made between the X.509 parser I created and a X.509 parser created"automatically"by a compiler. I tested static memory, allocation of memory during runtime and utilization of the CPU for both my parser (MP) and the parser that had a basic structure constructed by a compiler (OAP). I discuss changes in the parsers involved to make the comparison fair to OAP, the results from the tests and when circumstances such as time and non-standard content in the project make one way of constructing a X.509 parser better than the other way. The last part concerns a WTLS parser (a simpler kind of X.509 parser), which I created.</p>

This master thesis consists of three parts. The first part contains a summary of what is needed to understand a X.509 parser that I have created, a discussion concerning the technical problems I encountered during the programming of this parser and a discussion concerning the final version of the parser. The second part concerns a comparison I made between the X.509 parser I created and a X.509 parser created"automatically"by a compiler. I tested static memory, allocation of memory during runtime and utilization of the CPU for both my parser (MP) and the parser that had a basic structure constructed by a compiler (OAP). I discuss changes in the parsers involved to make the comparison fair to OAP, the results from the tests and when circumstances such as time and non-standard content in the project make one way of constructing a X.509 parser better than the other way. The last part concerns a WTLS parser (a simpler kind of X.509 parser), which I created.