Nicolas Williams wrote:
Subject: Re: no surprise - Sun fails to open source the crypto part of Java
Were you not surprised because you knew that said source is encumbered,
or because you think Sun has some nefarious motive to not open source
that code?
Third option: the architecture of Sun's Java crypto
framework is based on motives that should have been avoided,
and have come back to bite (again).
The crypto framework in Java as designed by Sun was built on
motives (nefarious, warped or just plain stupid, I don't
know) such as
* the need or desire to separate out encryption from
authentication, and deliver two compatible but varying
implementations in one variable body of code. With a
switch. Somewhere.
* some notion that crypto code should be ("must be") a
competitive market, one that is created by Sun, and is
controlled by Sun.
* circular dependency where we have to install a signed
provider which means we need signing which means we need
crypto ...
* Being dependent on PKI style certificates for signing, so
for example, if your machine doesn't have a properly
configured domain name, touching the crypto caused DNS
timeouts ... (1.5 from memory, might be fixed).
Hence, the framework is clumsy in practice, and trying to
change it (in any way) was likely to run into roadblocks at
the legal, policy and other areas like rights ...
As an aside, security is the baby that got thrown out with
the bathwater.
If the latter then keep in mind that you can find plenty of crypto code
in OpenSolaris, which, unless you think the CDDL does not qualify as
open source, is open source. I've no first hand knowledge, but I
suspect that the news story you quoted from is correct: the code is
encumbered and Sun couldn't get the copyright holders to permit release
under the GPL in time for the release of Java source under the GPL.
The real interest was whether there was any difficulty in
modifying the source code to add in the parts needed. As
Florian points out (thanks!), it is Sun's Provider that has
not been delivered.
This is good, that is the part that is intended to be
replaceable, so any of the Cryptix or Bouncy Castle or IAIK
providers can be easy alternatives.
My worry was that they hadn't open sourced the architecture
component, the part that wasn't meant to be replaceable.
However even if open sourced, Sun may still wield a stick
over the providers by insisting that they manage the signing
process for the providers.
(This is in effect what open source organisations like
Mozilla do with their source. There is a tiny hook in there
that stops people from changing the root list.)
iang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
