From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 6 11:39:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA18354 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (SRI-56K-FR.mt.net [206.127.65.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA18339 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA15232; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:35:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA01035; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:35:52 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:35:52 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199710061835.MAA01035@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Amancio Hasty Cc: patl@phoenix.volant.org, Terry Lambert , Bradley Dunn , scrappy@hub.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Netscape 4.03b8 and Encryption: In-Reply-To: <199710061751.KAA14072@rah.star-gate.com> References: <199710061751.KAA14072@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > >From The Desk Of patl@phoenix.volant.org : > > > Better yet, ask them to make encryption pluggable, and ask them for sample > > > code for a 40 bit encryption, and make a 128 bit module for yourself. > > > > > > If you can get someone in S.A. (or elsewhere) to do it, then NetScape > > > can work around the export restrictions (and Microsoft can't). This > > > should be very desirable for them, actually. > > > > Great idea; but I believe that the export restrictions prohibit > > pluggable cryptography. > > > > Nope. If you want to make sure you don't get in trouble, the answer is *yep*. They don't want the end-user to be able to 'skirt' around the issue by using 3rd party software developed out of the country. However, if you can provide a way of doing that isn't *only* for crytography you might get away with it. (I'm not a lawyer, but I have to act like one at work b/c we're doing stuff overseas...) Nate