Siju George wrote:
I 've been told by people ( more than one ) off list how *uncivilized*
it is to forward *private* mail publicly *even when it has some bad
content*.
I wouldn't sweat it too much. It would be one thing to bait him by first
promising not to go public with his mail and _later_
On 6/16/06, Siju George wrote:
Hi all,
I 've been told by people ( more than one ) off list how *uncivilized*
it is to forward *private* mail publicly *even when it has some bad
content*.
And I have been asked to apologize publicly ( not by Hank Cohen ).
Without trying to Justify my points
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Hifn policy on documentation
To: Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. george.
I do not appreciate being accused of lying.
If you choose not to use Hifn products then so be it.
I have announced our policy in good faith and been treated
Phil Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ultimately, I'll personally depend on crypto in software I can access for
myself. I think that's your real point.
Thanks for the well thought-out reply.
I too would place a heck of a lot less trust in some crypto chip than
something that is inspectable.
--Siju
-- Forwarded message --
From: Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jun 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Hifn policy on documentation
To: Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. george.
I do not appreciate being accused of lying.
If you choose not to use Hifn products then so
On 6/14/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I blame neither Mr. Cohen nor the lawyers. It's the decision makers at
the company who have decided this policy, which is a policy change from
years ago. Nobody else at the company is to blame. That's how
responsibility works.
No, it's not.
Oh well ...
I have to admit that I find it quite amusing how some people that do
restrict access to documentation are the same that do take advantage
of other people's free documentation ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssl-usersm=114832209207203w=2
Oh ... wait ... no. I don't find that
On 6/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh well ...
I have to admit that I find it quite amusing how some people that do
restrict access to documentation are the same that do take advantage
of other people's free documentation ...
On 6/15/06, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ditto for the card intentionally leaking the keying data
into the cipher stream?
oh come on, this discussion is already as off topic as it can be, no need
to add FUD to it. any algorithm the cards claim to implement _is_ fully
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:45:13PM -0800, Eliah Kagan wrote:
On 6/14/06, Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I blame neither Mr. Cohen nor the lawyers. It's the decision makers at
the company who have decided this policy, which is a policy change from
years ago. Nobody else at the company
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Look, it's pretty obvious from early exchanges in this thread that these
issues have been discussed by the principal parties over a fairly long
period of time. How many brilliant insights have been added by this
thread? More important, has this thread opened up Hifn's
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
I guess the part I don't understand is why are open source folks so
wary of running black-box *.o binaries from a vendor but are quite
eager to use blackbox crypto cards (that effectively run blackbox *.o
firmware)?
This is a pretty poor argument in my books.
knitti wrote:
oh come on, this discussion is already as off topic as it can be, no need
to add FUD to it. any algorithm the cards claim to implement _is_ fully
documented, so you can test any output except that of the RNG against a
'known good' implementation
This is a great point. However...
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:01:51AM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote:
1) The principle parties' exchanges didn't go anywhere. It is time to
crank the heat up a couple of notches. If the principle parties come in
and ask us to stop it will go a lot futher than you, some random person,
asking us
Breen Ouellette wrote:
Darrin Chandler wrote:
Look, it's pretty obvious from early exchanges in this thread that these
issues have been discussed by the principal parties over a fairly long
period of time. How many brilliant insights have been added by this
thread? More important, has
14, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Hifn policy on documentation
To: Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. george.
I do not appreciate being accused of lying.
If you choose not to use Hifn products then so be it.
I have announced our policy in good faith and been treated to
a barrage of insult
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:52:01PM -0700, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
| So what if one of the driver writers for one of the open source operating
| systems were to design a set of open standards for a hardware/software
| interface for chipsets in this class.
|
| I guess the part I don't
Siju George wrote:
This is the mail I got from Hifn representative for my response to his
mail and clarifications in misc.
...
Hank Cohen
On my own account.
Well, hopefully this will encourage Mr. Cohen to think hard about a
situation before he wallows in and posts something to a public
I second Mr. NetNeanderthal's opinions. Kudos to him for being clear and
non-abusive.
/Alexander
NetNeanderthal wrote:
On 6/13/06, Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Bryan Irvine wrote:
Registration at our extranet is required along with an email address
that can be confirmed. We cannot support anonymous FTP or http
downloads. The reason for this is that we are required by the
conditions of our US export licenses to know who and
At 08:45 AM 6/14/2006 -0600, you wrote:
L. V. Lammert wrote:
BS aside, it's obvious you don't deal in US markets! While the
implementation may be flawed, dealing with export regulations, silly as
that may seem to non US organizations, CAN be business threatening. Not to
be taken lightly.
The fact that a company restricts documentation to US download to satisfy
export concerns is quite valid. If the TERMS of the license ON the
documentation are 'unrestricted use', that's where we need to direct our
attention.
But that is not the point of the whole problem. The issue is
L. V. Lammert wrote:
BS aside, it's obvious you don't deal in US markets! While the
implementation may be flawed, dealing with export regulations, silly as
that may seem to non US organizations, CAN be business threatening. Not to
be taken lightly.
This issue has nothing to do with export
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:54:02 -0500 L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? What world are you living in? Export regulations for US companies are
EXTREMELY onerous, and if a company wants to do business internationally,
they have a ton of lawyers on staff playing games with things like
At 12:05 PM 6/14/2006 -0400, Adam wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:54:02 -0500 L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? What world are you living in? Export regulations for US companies are
EXTREMELY onerous, and if a company wants to do business internationally,
they have a ton of lawyers
L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, the 'Real World' seldom is aligned with the US Feds! Just
ask anyone that deals with Exports or the IRS. Sometimes it's truly amazing
that this country actually CAN get something done!
In what way is any of this relevant? Nobody is
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The fact that a company restricts documentation to US
download to satisfy
export concerns is quite valid.
No, it is not. There are no export concerns over documentation.
Huh? Better get yourself a lawyer before you land in jail!
OTOH, you're not
in the
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:43:16AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[snip]
And if you continue baiting me, I will delete the driver from our
source tree.
Here is my conclusion on this.
OpenBSD is the MOST secure OS on the planet and no one can dispute that.
PF is also the most secure firewall as
Adaptec was removed and we are better off and have more reliable
solutions now. So be it with Hifn crypto accelerators until they do.
Agreed, and because of the whole Adaptec debacle, more people are
aware of LSI Logic. People who have started using LSI (me) who hadn't
heard of them before AND
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:10:11 -0700, Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
I have to agree here. Stop being a drone and realize that this vendor is
being unreasonable.
Exactly. Maybe getting to be desperate too?
http://tinyurl.com/n5xdo
From the land down under: Australia.
Do we look umop apisdn from up
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 07:11:39PM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote:
| usage. It's conceivable they think their competitors are actually
| stupid enough that this form will stop them from learning about what
| they're doing or coming up with better ways to do it. In any event,
| however justifiable
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:16:54AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
| Bottom line - nobody is going to change the US export regulations, we just
| have to deal with them. If the license on vendor h/w s/w **IS** to our
| liking, there's no reason to dis them just because some lawyers MAKE them
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Phil Howard wrote:
This sillyness is like trying to prevent terrorist from having electricity
by not disclosing to them what the spacing between the prongs on electric
plugs is. It has absolutely nothing to do with it, and reeks of analysis
by a lawyer more interested in
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:10:06PM -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
If Mr. Cohen had come here and said Sorry, but our lawyer(s) insist that
we not make our interface documents open to people that don't play their
game of 50 questions then I don't think people would be blaming him for
any of this.
So what if one of the driver writers for one of the open source operating
systems were to design a set of open standards for a hardware/software
interface for chipsets in this class.
I guess the part I don't understand is why are open source folks so
wary of running black-box *.o binaries
Registration at our extranet is required along with an email address
that can be confirmed. We cannot support anonymous FTP or http
downloads. The reason for this is that we are required by the
conditions of our US export licenses to know who and where our customers
are. If anyone objects to
2006/6/13, Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's
On 13/06/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simple fact is that anyone who wants access to Hifn's documentation
need only log on to our extranet site (http://extranet.hifn.com/home/)
to download as much as they like.
That URL is not a place where you can download data sheets. That
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There has been some discussion of late on this list about
Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's unfriendliness towards the
2006/6/13, Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's
Hank Cohen wrote:
I hope that this clears the air.
I was hopeful too, at the beginning of your message. As I neared the end
I was becoming skeptical, and by the time I clicked through to the
registration page I was fairly certain where this was heading. Several
posts later and it looks
On 6/13/06, Breen Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm behind Theo 100%. The average person might consider him to be
over-reacting. I would counter that the average person will never be
involved in the purchase of a Hifn product.
Adding to your statement: I would be what you call the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Hank Cohen
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 9:10 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Hifn policy on documentation
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's
policy
with respect
* Michael Scheliga wrote:
truly open to the general public anonymous download site. I doubt
that the documentation that is being requested by developers is putting
you in violation of US Export Regulations. Your customer's locations
I live in Switzerland. Do I give a fuckin' rats ass for
Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some information will
probably always require a non-disclosure agreement. Information that
falls into that category is generally of a sensitive competitive nature,
contains trade secrets or is related to
Marc Balmer wrote:
* Michael Scheliga wrote:
truly open to the general public anonymous download site. I doubt
that the documentation that is being requested by developers is putting
you in violation of US Export Regulations. Your customer's locations
I live in Switzerland. Do I give a
From: Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:22:12 +0200
From: Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michael Scheliga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED], misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Hifn policy on documentation
* Michael Scheliga wrote:
truly open
-Original Message-
From: Michael Scheliga
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:21 PM
To: 'Dag Richards'
Subject: RE: Hifn policy on documentation
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Dag Richards
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:49 PM
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:43:16AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
[snip]
And if you continue baiting me, I will delete the driver from our
source tree.
You may as well. By the time Hifn release the documentation the speed
of cheap processors will have increased enough to make their current
On 6/13/06, Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's
Dag Richards wrote:
Marc Balmer wrote:
I live in Switzerland. Do I give a fuckin' rats ass for US Export
Regulations?
Not care about US Export Regs?
But that just means you want the terrorists to win.
After all our President is your President right?
I think nearly everyone here is
This is just another symptom of the US slide towards isolationism.
External competitive pressures are increasing every year and many
American institutions, both in government and private sector, are
seeking to restrict the trade of goods and ideas as a band aid to fix
the problem.
i have
On 6/13/06, Marcus Watts wrote:
In this case, the vendor appears to be talking about documentation,
which means they're actually confused. EAR covers chips but not
documentation. By US law they *have* to care about the chips.
Otherwise they're not in business. However the same law and a bunch
On 6/13/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Hank Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:10 AM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Hifn policy on documentation
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about
Hifn's policy
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:10:13 -0700
Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's
policy with respect to releasing documentation to the general
public. That discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed
speculation and
Registration at our extranet is required along with an email address
that can be confirmed. We cannot support anonymous FTP or http
downloads. The reason for this is that we are required by the
conditions of our US export licenses to know who and where our customers
are. If anyone objects
Travers Buda wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:10:13 -0700
Hank Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's
policy with respect to releasing documentation to the general
public. That discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed
On 6/13/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's
Folks,
There has been some discussion of late on this list about Hifn's policy
with respect to releasing documentation to the general public. That
discussion lead to a great deal of uninformed speculation and
unflattering statement's about Hifn's unfriendliness towards the open
source community.
60 matches
Mail list logo
