steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) (09/17/84)
> If the latter, why are we bothering about their regulations, or is this some > sort of acquiescence by AT&T to foreign telecommunications authorities? I hope this remark doesn't reflect the degree of xenophobia that it suggests. "Other countries have different standards? Well serve them right to suffer!" Acquiescence??? Anyone would think it was a war! The USA has different voltages to Europe. Should DEC then sell VAXes that only run to the USA standard? Of course not. Actually though, as it happens, the reason that Unixes leaving the US have to be changed, is because of the Reagan administration's fear that we'll only go and sell the encryption algorithms to the Commies! True fact. But he was too late, cos we've got the algorithms anyway. And know what? We still haven't sent them to the Reds! (Though if you don't get those Cruise missiles out, we will do, so be warned! :-) Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam. steven@mcvax.
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (09/17/84)
My guess about the changes to Un*x for the international market: to prevent France from conquering us by knowing our crypto secrets. That is, DOD and State Department require the changes. This is not a totally uninformed guess. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
hart@cp1.UUCP (09/19/84)
> > If the latter, why are we bothering about their regulations, or is this some > > sort of acquiescence by AT&T to foreign telecommunications authorities? > > I hope this remark doesn't reflect the degree of xenophobia that it > suggests. "Other countries have different standards? Well serve them right > to suffer!" > > Acquiescence??? Anyone would think it was a war! The USA has different > voltages to Europe. Should DEC then sell VAXes that only run to the USA > standard? Of course not. > > Actually though, as it happens, the reason that Unixes leaving the US have > to be changed, is because of the Reagan administration's fear that we'll > only go and sell the encryption algorithms to the Commies! True fact. But he > was too late, cos we've got the algorithms anyway. And know what? We still > haven't sent them to the Reds! (Though if you don't get those Cruise > missiles out, we will do, so be warned! :-) > > Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam. steven@mcvax. I have tried to keep out of this debate, but this takes the cake! In order to solve the problem the U.S. must demand that it's allies take full responsibility for their own welfare. I know this sounds like a rather childish statement, but we have tried to play world peace keeper at the expense of our less fortunate citizens. It burns me to think about the way I am taxed to subsidize a defense system that is unwanted by the very people it is supposed to protect. I fully understand that our defense will be weakend, but I know that if freedom is going to be appreciated you must pay a price. What is wrong with moving the defense line back a bit? At least we would not have to put up with this crap! Let's take care of our own and let Steve and his buddies take care of their's. -- ====================================================================== signed: Rod Hart (wa3mez) Minicomputer Technical Support District Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. A Bell Atlantic Company Silver Spring, Md. gamma!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - aplvax!cp1!hart ======================================================================
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (09/20/84)
<...> >> Actually though, as it happens, the reason that Unixes >> leaving the US have to be changed, is because of the >> Reagan administration's fear that we'll only go and sell >> the encryption algorithms to the Commies! >In order to solve the problem the U.S. must demand that it's allies >take full responsibility for their own welfare. I know this sounds >like a rather childish statement, but we have tried to play world >peace keeper..... Wow, wow, wow! By sending the Marines, eh? By endangering the very existence of humanity with your nuclear arsenal? >It burns me to think about the way I am taxed to subsidize a defense >system that is unwanted by the very people it is supposed to protect. You state it correctly: "supposed". >What is wrong with moving the defense line back a bit? A bit? It's being moved back to the point where the promotion and exchange of science becomes impossible. Even cooperation between European and American scientists is getting a problem; it's getting hard to get American speakers on congresses etc. in Europe, because they *might* tell things that *might* endanger US defense, if anyone amongst the audience *might* tell it to the Russians. Oh dear, oh dear! That's what the American paranoia is now leading to. BTW, this should be moved to net.politics. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
jack@vu44.UUCP (Jack Jansen) (09/27/84)
> But he > was too late, cos we've got the algorithms anyway. And know what? We still > haven't sent them to the Reds! Well, I tried to make myself some money, but the Russian ambassador didn't even want to pay the postage :-) Jack Jansen, {philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack or ...!vu44!htsa!jack
hutton@sdcsvax.UUCP (Thomas Hutton) (10/13/84)
[....Please dont eat my article....] Hey People, I think this is getting a little out of hand! The original article that I posted was to ask if anyone knew the exact items that needed to be changed in order to sell unix(tm) as a commercial product outside of the United States - not the political motives behind this. As a matter of history - the restriction on crytpo routines has been around for a while - There was this restriction in system iii - It was mainly never noticed before because in past history - UNIX was not a commercial product! Now for the info that I originally was interesed in. It basicly boils down to the fact that the crypt routines in the c library must be changed to remove all decrypting possiblities and to remove the DES permutations so the routine does straight DES. Also the crypt(1) and makekey programs cannot be distributed. As a result of changing crypt(3), all editors which supported the -x option (encrypt/decrypt) must have this stripped out of them, the passwd, login, newgrp and su routines need to be recompiled as well as the new libc.a So one loses crypt(1) - It was not that hard of an encryption system to break anyways! - as for straight DES - at least you get DES - sure the lack of the permutations make it easier for Hardware DES attack methods but I dont think this is that much of a problem Thomas Hutton Pacific Microcomputers Inc. ucbvax!sdcsvax!pacific!hutton hutton@seismo.ARPA [The above views are not necessarily the views of my employeer or anyone else for that matter]