Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>