Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:12:26 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Crypto code - an architectural proposal. Message-ID: <199506192012.WAA00163@grumble.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Not quite. libdescrypt was designed in such a way that I believe the > State Department would admit that it doesn't actually do encryption, > which would then allow you to apply to the Commerce Department for a > declaration that it is exportable as ``technical data''. You still > have to apply to the State Department first before attempting to > export the binary. > > For extra safefty, the subfunctions called by crypt() could be > inlined. If the state department has a problem (or potential problem) with the crypt(3) in libdescrypt, why is there _no_ problem with the MD5 crypt(3)? They are functionally equivalent. Was the MD5 version even vetted? M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506192012.WAA00163>