Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:35:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: patl@phoenix.volant.org, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>, scrappy@hub.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Netscape 4.03b8 and Encryption: Message-ID: <199710061835.MAA01035@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199710061751.KAA14072@rah.star-gate.com> References: <199710061751.KAA14072@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >From The Desk Of patl@phoenix.volant.org : > > > Better yet, ask them to make encryption pluggable, and ask them for sample > > > code for a 40 bit encryption, and make a 128 bit module for yourself. > > > > > > If you can get someone in S.A. (or elsewhere) to do it, then NetScape > > > can work around the export restrictions (and Microsoft can't). This > > > should be very desirable for them, actually. > > > > Great idea; but I believe that the export restrictions prohibit > > pluggable cryptography. > > > > Nope. If you want to make sure you don't get in trouble, the answer is *yep*. They don't want the end-user to be able to 'skirt' around the issue by using 3rd party software developed out of the country. However, if you can provide a way of doing that isn't *only* for crytography you might get away with it. (I'm not a lawyer, but I have to act like one at work b/c we're doing stuff overseas...) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710061835.MAA01035>