arthur@qfagus.OZ (Arthur Raiskio) (03/09/90)
I am after a crypt function that produces an encryption code that is compatable with the encryptions produced by the standard XENIX facilities such as passwd and used by programs such as su and login. I an not trying to hack the crypt process I am just trying to write a front end processor and it would be nice if I could get away with using just 1 password file (/etc/passwd) as it would make life just so much easier. I do not understand why the crypt facility was not included as a library function in XENIX. With thanks in advance for any possible assistance. p.s. Could anybody please mail me direct and not make a reply via news if they are able to offer any help, particularly C source code. Again thanks in advance.
jaa@cs.su.oz (James Ashton) (03/12/90)
In article <26323@qfagus.OZ> arthur@qfagus.OZ (Arthur Raiskio) writes: >I am after a crypt function that produces an encryption code that is compatable >with the encryptions produced by the standard XENIX facilities such as passwd >and used by programs such as su and login. I an not trying to hack the crypt >process I am just trying to write a front end processor and it would be nice if >I could get away with using just 1 password file (/etc/passwd) as it would >make life just so much easier. I do not understand why the crypt facility was >not included as a library function in XENIX. With thanks in advance for any >possible assistance. At the bottom of the SysV manual entry for crypt it says: This program is not available on software shipped outside the U.S. This is because of government stupidity in the states - either it's illegal or too bureaucratically nightmarish to export this stuff - technology transfer & etc. That's just the way it is. I think this means you loose. James Ashton.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (03/13/90)
In article <758@cluster.cs.su.oz> jaa@cluster.cs.su.oz (James Ashton) writes: > This program is not available on software shipped outside the U.S. >This is because of government stupidity in the states - either it's illegal >or too bureaucratically nightmarish to export this stuff - technology >transfer & etc. Dennis once gave me a summary of the actual story behind this restriction. It seems that the Commerce Dept. was willing to allow export, but EACH system shipped would require its own authorization, i.e. no blanket permission. Naturally AT&T decided this would be impractical, so they simply omitted the software in question from international shipments.