From owner-freebsd-security Sun May 2 23:31:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from beatrice.rutgers.edu (beatrice.rutgers.edu [165.230.209.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320D315A68 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 23:31:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu) Received: (from easmith@localhost) by beatrice.rutgers.edu (980427.SGI.8.8.8/970903.SGI.AUTOCF) id CAA06496; Mon, 3 May 1999 02:14:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Allen Smith" Message-Id: <9905030214.ZM6494@beatrice.rutgers.edu> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 02:14:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: Peter Jeremy "Re: Blowfish/Twofish" (May 3, 2:09am) References: <99May3.161109est.40332@border.alcanet.com.au> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: Peter Jeremy , nick@shibumi.feralmonkey.org Subject: Re: Blowfish/Twofish Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On May 3, 2:09am, Peter Jeremy (possibly) wrote: > 0x1c wrote: > >On a similar note, is there any restriction on one-way hashing algorithms? > >I forget. > AFAIK, there isn't. MD4, MD5, SHA-1 etc appear to be all be freely > exportable. The export restrictions appear to be on crypto for > `secrecy', whilst crypto for `authentication' is unrestricted. > (This does suggest that some lessons in basic cryptography are > needed around the US State Department). Actually, no... as long as you assume their basic motivation is to limit _convenient_ cryptography. Remember the "cryptographic hooks" nonsense? They're pretty obviously trying to make it as hard as possible/practical for private citizens to use cryptography that the US government can't break. -Allen -- Allen Smith easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message