Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions

2008-06-12 Thread Richard Salz
I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than 
software.

/r$

--
STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions

2008-06-12 Thread John Gilmore
 I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than 
 software.

A hardware design is not hardware.  Only a naive parsing of the
words would treat it so.  A software design is not treated like
software; you are free to write about how ATM machine crypto is
designed, even if you can't export ATM machine crypto software without
a license (because it's proprietary and not mass-market).

A hardware design is a lot like software.  It's human written and
human readable, it's trivial to reproduce, it's compiled automatically
into something that can execute, and if you write it into hardware,
then it does something.

The court case that EFF won against the export controls was won on
those grounds: the government can't suppress the publication of
human-written and human-readable text, on the grounds that somebody
somewhere might put it into a machine that does things the government
doesn't like.

Sun may be chicken on the point, and the government did a sneaky trick
to technically avoid having a Ninth Circuit precedent set on the
topic, but a similar precedent was set by Peter Junger's case in
another circuit.  I think Sun would be well within its rights to ship
VHDL or Verilog source code that implements crypto under an open
source license.  And I'd be happy to point them at good lawyers who'd
be happy to be paid to render a more definitive opinion.

John Gilmore


-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions

2008-06-12 Thread Richard Salz
If only to make sure that there's no confusion about where I stand:  I 
agree with you completely John.  I am not surprised that the feds or Sun 
see it otherwise.

/r$

--
STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions

2008-06-12 Thread Thierry Moreau



Richard Salz wrote:

I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than 
software.




That's an interesting observation, raising the issue of what is speech 
 vs hardware.


When I looked into this issue, I found the Common Criteria 
certification methodology as evidence that speech covers everything 
from the most high level abstract design description to the most 
concrete representation of the hardware that you would look at, e.g. for 
security certification assurance that electronic gates are properly 
positioned by the Computer-Aided-Design tools. Hence, any information is 
speech, and if it's in the public domain, I would expect an export 
control exception would apply. Only the actual silicon, and non 
human-readable dies for the silicon, would be hardware.


Otherwise, I see no legal base to locate a cut-off point between 
speech and hardware in the process of design refinements leading to 
the actual processor.


Regards,

--

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions!

2008-06-11 Thread zooko

Dear people of the cryptography mailing list:

I received a note from Sridhar Vajapey, head of the Sun OpenSPARC  
programme, which releases a complete modern CPU under the GPL.   
Except that it isn't complete -- the parts that do AES, SHA-1 and  
SHA-2, and public key crypto acceleration are all mysteriously  
omitted from the released source [1].  I have previously posted about  
this issue on this list [2].


I inquired about this with Sridhar Vajapey, and he wrote US export  
control regulations prevent Sun from opensourcing the crypto portion  
of N2..  (N2 is the development code-name for the most recent  
OpenSPARC -- its product name is T2.)


Appended is my reply.  If anyone on this list knows more about the  
relevant export regulations, please share.


Regards,

Zooko

[1] http://www.opensparc.net/opensparc-t2/downloads.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09090.html


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
	Subject: 	Re: Please contact me about open source of the crypto  
modules in T2

Date:   June 8, 2008 3:07:02 PM PDT
To: Sridhar Vajapey
Cc: Shrenik Mehta, Roberta Pokigo, Simon Phipps

Dear Sridhar Vajapey:

Thank you for the prompt reply.  Having participated in the struggle  
in the 1990's to make crypto freely available and to end the export  
restrictions, and having thought that we won, I am saddened to find  
out that this is why Sun hasn't open sourced that component.


So far, I have failed to understand why the current US crypto export  
regime (see survey here [1] -- be sure to follow the timeline as the  
laws have been relaxed many times over the last decade) doesn't  
permit Sun to post the source code of the crypto components of the  
T2.  It would appear to me that that source code falls under the  
rubric of publically available crypto source code, as described  
here [2], which would mean that Sun need only send an e-mail to the  
right address giving them the URL of the source code in order to  
satisfy the law.  On the other hand if the source code for building  
chips doesn't count as source code, then presumably it would count  
as mass-market crypto which means that Sun need only do slightly  
more paperwork in order to gain such approval.


If Sun applied for approval of GPL'ed crypto under such a regulation  
and was *denied* by BIS then I would really like to know why.


Another guess, and please don't take this the wrong way, is that NSA  
baloneyed you into *thinking* that you couldn't, or shouldn't,  
release the crypto components when legally you can.  (I have personal  
knowledge of two such extra-legal attempts by NSA to deter crypto  
proliferation in the 1990's -- once with Netscape and once with Cisco.)


Oh, in fact this leads me to another question:  Even in the (in my  
humble opinion unlikely) case that Sun is disallowed from exporting  
the source of the crypto modules to foreign countries, there is  
certainly no law which would constrain Sun from sharing that source  
with US persons within the US.  I originally became aware of this  
issue as a potential customer who was interested in the T2, rather  
than as an activist.  I am a US citizen residing in the US, and there  
is certainly no law which would preclude Sun from giving me that  
source under the GPL.  So, please do.  You can just attach it to your  
reply.  ;-)


Thanks again.  Adding cc: Simon Phipps (the Open Source Guy at  
Sun), as I have previously corresponded with him on this topic.


Regards,

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn

[1] http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/cls2.htm#us_1
[2] http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/default.htm

-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]