From: David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
To: warlord@MIT.EDU
Message Hash: 0156f20ad4f16f08da6caccb793dd3e20f80e61fe6a5f8faa4e6e60197783938
Message ID: <199601242346.SAA14838@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply To: <199601242330.SAA08632@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-27 01:14:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:14:13 +0800
From: David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:14:13 +0800
To: warlord@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Crippled Notes export encryption
In-Reply-To: <199601242330.SAA08632@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199601242346.SAA14838@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> cc: Jeff Weinstein <jsw@netscape.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:30:00 EST
> From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
>
> > How did kerberos avoid this? The "bones" distribution of kerberos
> > without crypto was not regulated by ITAR, right?
>
> Kerberos didn't leave the crypto plugable. The bones distribution
> removed not only the crypto routines but also the calls to the crypto
> routines. It would be hard to call that "pluggable". It took a lot
> of work for someone down under to replace all those crypto calls!
So where exactly do they draw the line? You can still construct your
software in such a way that there is a clean boundary between the
crypto stuff and the rest.
For example, could you have an application with a function:
authenticate_user (int file_descriptor)
which in the exportable version sends a password, and in the domestic
version constructs some sort of authenticator?
Could you have an xdr-like function which on in an exportable version
just does argument marshaling and in a domestic version also encrypts?
How exactly are crypto-hooks defined? This restriction seems orders
of magnitude more bogus than even the ban on exporting actual
encryption.
David
Return to January 1996
Return to “Ulf_Moeller@public.uni-hamburg.de (Ulf Moeller)”