On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Following the instructions[3], step 1 is to work out whether OOo has >>> any unusual cryptography beyond ECCN 5D002, which is: >>> >>> <blockquote cite='http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#classify> >>> Software specially designed or modified for the development, >>> production or use of any of the other software of this list, or >>> software designed to certify other software on this list; or >>> Software using a "symmetric algorithm" employing a key length in >>> excess of 56-bits; or >>> Software using an "asymmetric algorithm" where the security of the >>> algorithm is based on: factorization of integers in excess of 512 bits >>> (e.g., RSA), computation of discrete logarithms in a multiplicative >>> group of a finite field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g., >>> Diffie-Hellman over Z/pZ), or other discrete logarithms in a group in >>> excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman over an elliptic curve). >>> </blockquote> >>> >>> Does OOo rely on cryptography more exotic than this? >>> >> >> That is where it seems backwards to me. If I'm reading this >> correctly, we are OK if we use a symmetrical algorithm with key length >> greater than ("in excess of") 56-bits. But if we use an algorithm, >> with less thanb 56-bits we're considered exotic? Really? >> >> For example, Calc has a ROT13() spreadsheet function, which >> undoubtedly is a weak symmetrical encryption technique, certainly not >> one with a key length in excess of 56-bits. >> >> So what now? In other words, I'm puzzled by the "in excess" part. >> They seem to be saying that strong encryption is regulated less than >> weak encryption. >> >> Could you explain where I'm getting this wrong? > > > It looks to me like the key phrase is "any unusual cryptography beyond > ECCN 5D002", and the definition of that phrase is the cited block, as > opposed to the cited block being a definition of ECCN 5D002. > > I am having a remarkably hard time finding a definition of ECCN 5D002.
EAR 740.13(e) should be on http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bad7a54a31430303e17ce648c13e51b3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:2.1.3.4.25&idno=15#15:2.1.3.4.25.0.1.13 Robert
