The loopback device seems established in the kernel now, and cryptoapi has to modify it by patches (fairly minor patches it seems), but the interface to some sort of processing software in the loop would surely be a good place to put, for example, disk compression, I don't care that I have to add crypto modules to the kernel to make crypto work, what I do care about is having to patch the existing kernel, with all the version problems that results in. Whether the "actual cryptographic code" is in the distribution may not make much difference to US export status, but it seems to me it makes quite a big difference to Import status in, for example, France. Paul Hilton > > Certain countries -- most notably the US -- consider any software with a > "crypto-shaped hole" in it to be equivalent to crypto software for > purposes of export controls; the buzzword is "enabling technologies". Any > code that is there solely or primarily to support use of cryptography is > covered. Whether "actual cryptographic code" is included or not does not > make much of a difference to export status. > > The only way to avoid this is to provide a more general-purpose interface > that clearly has other uses (i.e., other uses are actually implemented, > not just talked about). That's quite a bit harder to do. > > Henry Spencer > henry@spsystems.net > > - > Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system > Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/ _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
