Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 09:56:24 EDT From: jleppek@suw2k.ess.harris.com (James Leppek) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Crypt code summary(2). Message-ID: <9506261356.AA00611@borg.ess.harris.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
while the work in rfc1421..24 dealing with internet mail is important the arena of "general" application level internet security is quite active. As a researcher in this area there are a variety of SAMPs (security association management protocols) and KMPs (key management protocols) that are being hottly debated at every conference and standards meeting. I am hoping to use freebsd to pitch my own abstract security services(SNAPI) interface at the next technology transfer conference in august if my NEC notebooks arrive in time. The point is that there is no clear solution, or even path, at this time. The IEEE802.10 folks have been struggling to come to some consensus for years. Motorola is actively pushing there SAMP, while commercial organization like netscape and NCSA utilize niche solutions like SSL(Secured Socket Layer) and SHTTP. Even this activity was a battle and I believe the terisa activity was an attempt to get just these 2 protocols together. Remember as well that IPNG is around the corner with additional intrinisc security capabilities (if anyone figures out what to do with them :-) ) While I have been a fbsd advocate since 1993, I have not been an "active" contributor so maybe I shouldn't have a say but I feel obligated to offer an opinion which is, don't try to commit security services to the src tree yet. The ports or experimental areas are a much better home and would make it much easier to avoid stepping on those nasty US munitions laws :-) The dust will settle soon to a "few" possibilities and then a path should be chosen. Jim Leppek > From owner-freebsd-current@freefall.cdrom.com Mon Jun 26 05:18:44 1995 > X-Authentication-Warning: grumble.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol > To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> > Cc: phk@freefall.cdrom.com (Poul-Henning Kamp), mark@grondar.za, > wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu, current@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Crypt code summary(2). > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:20:11 +0200 > From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> > Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org > > > I am going to counter Poul, and agree with Garrett, and give reasons > > for doing so. > > ...and I am going to debate this too! > > > a) It is very likely to change as RFC's get done to cover this and > > we will more or less be forced to rip out what ever we had done > > to implement what is in the RFCs. > > The SSLeay code is already covered by RFC's. See rfc1421, rfc1422, rfc1423 > and rfc1424. > > > b) This is cryto code and may have legal ramifications that none of > > us have fully evaluated (and I wouldn't consider it fully evaluated > > until some one has consulted with the State Department and/or an > > attourny (didn't we have some one once offer us free or low cost > > legal counsel??). > > Do US embassies have PR State Department folks I could ask? > > 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?9506261356.AA00611>