From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 19 13:12:56 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA08404 for current-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:12:56 -0700 Received: from grunt.grondar.za (grunt.grondar.za [196.7.18.129]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA08393 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:12:38 -0700 Received: from grumble.grondar.za (grumble.grondar.za [196.7.18.130]) by grunt.grondar.za (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA00104; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:12:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grumble.grondar.za (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA00163; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:12:26 +0200 Message-Id: <199506192012.WAA00163@grumble.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grumble.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Garrett Wollman cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Crypto code - an architectural proposal. Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:12:26 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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