wsinpvb@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (p.v.bemmelen) (08/17/89)
I am writing a program on a UNIX system that uses the crypt() function. Now I want to port this program to MS-DOS, but the problem is that I don't have a crypt() function, (source or object code). Who can help me obtain a crypt() function ?? One that runs faster than the standard unix one would also be welcome to speed up the UNIX version as well. Greetings, wsinpvb@eutrc3.UUCP wsinpvb@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl
hinton@netcom.UUCP (Greg Hinton) (08/18/89)
In article <855@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl> wsinpvb@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (p.v.bemmelen) writes: >Who can help me obtain a crypt() function ?? One that runs faster than the >standard unix one would also be welcome to speed up the UNIX version as well. I believe Robert T. Morris has just what you're looking for! :-) -- Greg Hinton INET: hinton@netcom.uucp UUCP: ...!uunet!apple!netcom!hinton
nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) (08/20/89)
[request for crypt function] Didn't I read somewhere that Unix encryption was restricted to U.S.A. and not for export? What happens if the function gets in the "wrong" hands through the network? nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt!nghiem
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/20/89)
In <17369@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: > What happens if [crypt()] gets in the "wrong" hands through the network? The ruskies will then be able to decode all of our secret military transmissions, bringing about the fall of democracy as we know it today and subjecting the entire planet to the dominance of the evil empire. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg) (08/21/89)
In article <3947@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: :In <17369@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: :> What happens if [crypt()] gets in the "wrong" hands through the network? : : The ruskies will then be able to decode all of our secret military :transmissions, bringing about the fall of democracy as we know it today and :subjecting the entire planet to the dominance of the evil empire. Not to mention that the Colonel's secret fried chicken recipe would be placed in grave danger! -- David Sandberg - Quadric Systems "Strike Hard, Strike Sure" PSEUDO: dts@quad.uucp Bomber Command, R.A.F. ACTUAL: ..uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts
amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew Boardman) (08/22/89)
In article <17369@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: >Didn't I read somewhere that Unix encryption was restricted to >U.S.A. and not for export? What happens if the function gets >in the "wrong" hands through the network? Not a lot. Picture this: person who is in another country with his machine on the Internet ftp's the appropriate crypt binary (or source if he has it) via one of his accounts in the US. It's quite probably happened quite a few times; it's not a high-security item. It's just Officially Frowned Upon for some terribly good reason which escapes me at the moment. (This last bit was explained to me by an ex-NSA friend who's now at DEC of all places.) Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu (for those that must, ab4@cunixc on bitnet)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/22/89)
In article <17369@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: >Didn't I read somewhere that Unix encryption was restricted to >U.S.A. and not for export? What happens if the function gets >in the "wrong" hands through the network? Nothing happens. The UNIX crypt routines (all of them) have long been in the "wrong hands". The export restriction applies to software vendors, primarily because they haven't been able to obtain blanket export licenses from the Commerce Dept. and the cost of doing them one at a time is prohibitive.
wvenable@spam.ua.oz (Bill Venables) (08/23/89)
In article <10793@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <17369@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) writes: >>Didn't I read somewhere that Unix encryption was restricted to >>U.S.A. and not for export? What happens if the function gets >>in the "wrong" hands through the network? > > Nothing happens. The UNIX crypt routines (all of them) have long been > in the "wrong hands". [...] Let me confirm (although noone seems to doubt it) that the crypt() facility is not available on UNIX machines in Australia, and I must say I find this circumstance, although petty, a rather gratuitous insult from Uncle Sam. wnv. -- Dr. W. N. Venables, Dept. Statistics, | ACSnet: wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. |
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (08/23/89)
In article <164@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: > Let me confirm (although noone seems to doubt it) that the crypt() facility > is not available on UNIX machines in Australia, and I must say I find this > circumstance, although petty, a rather gratuitous insult from Uncle Sam. It may not be distributed in commercial releases, but I guarantee that some UNIX system in Australia does have all the usual UNIX crypt code, obtained at a time when nobody was paying much attention to this matter. I don't think Uncle Sam was trying to be insulting, just bureaucrats applying rules blindly rather than judging situations on their own merits.
ruud@targon.UUCP (Ruud Harmsen) (08/23/89)
In article <164@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: > Let me confirm (although noone seems to doubt it) that the crypt() facility > is not available on UNIX machines in Australia, and I must say I find this > circumstance, although petty, a rather gratuitous insult from Uncle Sam. > I presume you are talking about the PROGRAM crypt (in section 1 of the man- pages), whereas other had the SUBROUTINE crypt(3) in mind. These two, despite their names, HAVE NOTHING TO DO with each other! crypt(3) is available on all UNIXes (though not as source), crypt(1) is not.
trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott) (08/24/89)
In article <605@targon.UUCP>, ruud@targon.UUCP (Ruud Harmsen) writes: > In article <164@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: > crypt(3) is available on all UNIXes (though not as source), crypt(1) is not. ... and this is particularly amusing since crypt(3) uses a powerful encryption method (DES) whereas crypt(1) uses a much simpler and weaker method. But "they" have spoken. crypt(1) must not escape from the USA. Of course people within the USA are permitted to use it. People outside the USA will have to be content with reading the 1984 AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal which explains how to break the encryption! Tom Truscott
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (08/24/89)
In article <10802@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <164@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: >> Let me confirm (although noone seems to doubt it) that the crypt() facility >> is not available on UNIX machines in Australia, and I must say I find this >> circumstance, although petty, a rather gratuitous insult from Uncle Sam. >It may not be distributed in commercial releases, but I guarantee that >some UNIX system in Australia does have all the usual UNIX crypt code, >obtained at a time when nobody was paying much attention to this matter. You get it if you buy a UNIX source license. Some computer companies in Europe distributes both the crypt command and the library function with the UNIX'es for their box'es. And many (some?) U.S. computer manufacturers provides the crypt function in the library, even though they not always includes the crypt command. -- Robert Claeson E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (08/25/89)
In article <10802@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <164@spam.ua.oz> wvenable@spam.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: >> Let me confirm (although noone seems to doubt it) that the crypt() facility >> is not available on UNIX machines in Australia [...] > >It may not be distributed in commercial releases, but I guarantee that >some UNIX system in Australia does have all the usual UNIX crypt code, >obtained at a time when nobody was paying much attention to this matter. All the Unix systems I've seen in the UK have the crypt() library function. What recent ones don't have is the crypt *program*. It would be very awkward if the function were removed, since it is used for passwords. The source for the program crypt has been posted to the net at least once (in the crypt-breakers workbench). As I understand it, the crypt() function implements the DES algorithm (modified by the presence of the salt). The crypt program uses an enigma-type encoding, after using crypt() (indirectly through the trivial program makekey) to generate a key from the password. All this seems a bit strange, since I'd have thought that DES was the thing that might not be exportable... -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
carlp@frigg.iscs.com (Carl Paukstis) (08/25/89)
In article <605@targon.UUCP> ruud@targon.UUCP (Ruud Harmsen) writes: > >crypt(3) is available on all UNIXes (though not as source), crypt(1) is not. ^^^ "Always avoid over-generalizing." I recall that we had some rather interesting discussions with the commerce department on this subject. The "International" version of the stuff WE send out most emphatically does NOT include the crypt(3) function. That's basically the ONLY reason we HAVE a separate "International" version. I'm not aware of what we did for password encryption, but it's not the standard encryption, or DES, or anything else which qualifies as encryption technology. It doesn't have to make sense, it's the LAW. Or the rule with force of law. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." -- Carl Paukstis "I'm the NRA" | DOMAIN: carlp@frigg.ISCS.COM NOTE preferred mail address change, | UUCP: ...!uunet!iscuva!frigg!carlp although the old one will forward. | Ma Bell: +1 509 927-5439 We'll be changing DOMAIN name shortly to "ISC-BR.COM". Ya gotta love a merger!
cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) (08/26/89)
In article <605@targon.UUCP> ruud@targon.UUCP (Ruud Harmsen) writes: >crypt(3) is available on all UNIXes (though not as source), crypt(1) is not. Nope. SunOS 2.0 doesn't have crypt(3) either. Rob -- UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudcv PHONE: +44 203 523037 JANET: cudcv@uk.ac.warwick ARPA: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England
karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) (08/28/89)
In article <2606@iscuva.ISCS.COM> carlp@frigg.iscs.COM (Carl Paukstis) writes: >The "International" version of the stuff WE send out most emphatically >does NOT include the crypt(3) function. This must be the legendary implementation that stores passwords using rot-13. :-) Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
jourdan@seti.inria.fr (Martin Jourdan) (08/28/89)
In article <183@titania.warwick.ac.uk> cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes: > In article <605@targon.UUCP> ruud@targon.UUCP (Ruud Harmsen) writes: > >crypt(3) is available on all UNIXes (though not as source), crypt(1) is not. > > Nope. SunOS 2.0 doesn't have crypt(3) either. Rob But our SunOS 3.4 does have it, even in France; however it does not have the crypt(1) program nor the manual page for crypt(3). (BTW: I would be interested in it; can someone mail me the nroff source? Many thanks in advance.) Look in /lib/libc.a; maybe all what you lack is the man page also... -- Martin Jourdan <jourdan@minos.inria.fr>, INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. My employers have no opinion and they guarantee my freedom of expression.