Re: [Crypto] Re: vs.

Joshua E. Hill (
Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:38:26 -0700 (PDT) said:
> >Purely from a crypto regulation standpoint, we were better off when Linus
> >was in Finland. If we ever do get strong crypto in the kernel, Linus
> >won't be able to manage the kernel anymore... (or he won't be able to
> >export it, or he will be a felon). As this is the case, I doubt that
> >real crypto will be in the official distribution of the kernel anytime in
> >the near future.
> Why is this a problem? We can just have crypto APIs defined and have all the encryption in daemons or modules which have their source located outside the US.

well... I didn't say (though I may have incorrectly implied) that linux
can't use cryptography... I've seen many useful crypto products for linux
(IPsec, SWAN, and the real crypto loop back device to name a few).
Unfortunately, they aren't (and probably won't be) incorporated with the main
stream kernel in the same way that other functions are. It's really inane
that this bit of math (complex though it is) can't be included in the
official kernel distribution, not because of technical concerns, but
because of politics.



-----------------------------Joshua E. Hill-----------------------------
| Gallois' Revelation: |
| If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out |
| but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a |
| very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled, and no one dares |
| to criticize it. |