"IT3 Stuart B. Tener, USNR-R" wrote: > > Mr. Harris, Mr. Chan, et al.: > > I must question if either of you actually even read what I posted, because > your response absolutely makes no sense relative to the commentary I > scripted. Yes, I read it :-) > Why do all that? To insure an integration of a crypto API into the standard > kernel distribution, which would not force all this modification to take > place. As well, then a person would need only replace "dummy" encryption > modules with real encryption modules, if allow by local legislation to do > so. > > Export laws do not prevent the API from being inclusive to Linux, they > prevent the actually encryption code from being in Linux, period. You're assuming the laws make sense. Various gov'ts, particularly the US but they're by no means the only one, have been doing senseless things in this area for decades. Did you read my post? :-) | Your solution with dummy modules does not work, because the writers of the | export laws excluded that approach. Any "crypto-shaped hole", any interface | designed to make adding cryptography easy, is covered by those laws. That is based on my understanding of current regulations, in the US and elsewhere. I believe it is correct, based on various documents I've read and conversations I've had in several years of following the controversy. I certainly agree that a good crypto API should be in the standard kernel distribution. I am far from convinced that current US laws allow this. Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
