From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 08:29:40 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)
Subject: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
In-Reply-To: <m0tFpbT-0008yaC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199511162113.QAA08492@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


jim bell writes:
>>jim bell writes:
>>>>I think it's 121.1, Category XIII paragraph (b) item (5):
>>>>"Ancillary equipment specifically designed or modified for paragraphs (b)
>>>>(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this category;"
>>>
>>>Question:  What makes computers in general NOT describable by such a
>>>paragraph?!?
>>
>>The referenced paragraphsdescribe cryptographic hardware, software and
>>technical data.  Computers in general are not "specifically designed"
>>as cryptographic equipment.
>
>Great!  Then you must merely ensure that there is at least one
>(non-encryption) program around that can use the same hooks.

The problem is that the non-encryption program must use the same
interface as the encryption program.  Text compression is often cited
as an example of a non-encryption program that can use the same hooks
as a compression program, but there's a key difference:  the text
compressor *doesn't* need a key.

The encryption tool would have an interface like
    Boolean (*)( DataSource, DataSink, void*);

A compressor written to the same interface would never need to touch
that third argument.  Therefore, the second argument is "specifically
designed" to permit an encryption tool to be used.

You'd need a program which not only *accepted* the additional parameter,
but also *needed* the second parameter.  I confess I have some difficulty
thinking of one.