cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-09-06 - Re: rc2 export limits..

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: “P. J. Ponder” <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Message Hash: a30ec235d3c448df0d018ebb46cb6200c93cfa21d022bd144c78d5562a9218fd
Message ID: <199609051547.LAA07458@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960905084320.30700A-100000@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-06 10:59:18 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:59:18 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:59:18 +0800
To: "P. J. Ponder" <ponder@freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Subject: Re: rc2 export limits..
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960905084320.30700A-100000@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us>
Message-ID: <199609051547.LAA07458@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"P. J. Ponder" writes:
> The FIPS Pub (?180? ?181?) for the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) states in 
> the fine print at the beginning that SHA is export controlled.  I don't 
> have the document to refer to right now, but it plainly states that SHA  
> falls under ITAR.  As a cryptographic hash function, why would it be 
> controlled in this way?

Because the feds aren't stupid -- they know you can use any good hash
algorithm as the core for a block cipher.

Perry

Thread