From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 19 13:31:34 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA09452 for current-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:31:34 -0700 Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA09438 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:31:28 -0700 Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.3.6) id AA09366; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 16:31:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 16:31:20 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <9506192031.AA09366@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Crypto code - an architectural proposal. In-Reply-To: <199506192018.NAA08709@freefall.cdrom.com> References: <199506192012.WAA00163@grumble.grondar.za> <199506192018.NAA08709@freefall.cdrom.com> Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk < said: >> 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? > MD5 cannot decrypt. It's more than that; the same is true of the DES crypt(). The significant difference between the two is that the DES crypt() is based on real encryption software which has been specially broken, whereas MD5 was designed from the ground up as a one-way hash function, and is thus not even potantially subject to export controls. (At least until the State Department learns that any one-way hash function can be used for encryption with a little effort.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant