Its not a question of FUD, but that certain types of encryption/decryption code falls under the munitions act. See: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo_crypt_9611_memo.htm
Having said that, there is this: http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/encfaqs6_17_02.html In short, I don't as a habit export/import encryption technology so I am not up to speed on the current state of the laws. Which is why I have to question the current state of the US encryption laws. This then leads to another question... suppose Apache does add encryption to Hadoop. While the Apache organization does have the proper paperwork in place, what then happens to Cloudera, Hortonworks, EMC, IBM, Intel, etc ? But lets put that question aside. The point I was trying to make was that the core Sun JVM does support MD5 and SHA-1 out of the box, so that anyone running Hadoop and using the 1.6_xx or the 1.7_xx versions of the JVM will have these packages. Adding hooks that use these classes are a no brainer. However, beyond this... you tell me. -Mike On Mar 16, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > The ASF avails itself of an exception to crypto export which only requires > a bit of PMC housekeeping at release time. So "is not [ok]" is FUD. I > humbly request we refrain from FUD here. See > http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html. To the best of our knowledge we > expect this to continue, though the ASF has not updated this policy yet for > recent regulation updates. > > On Saturday, March 16, 2013, Michel Segel wrote: > >> I also want to add that you could add MD5 and SHA-1, but I'd check on us >> laws... I think these are ok, however other encryption/decryption code is >> not. >> >> They are part of the std sun java libraries ... >> >> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... >> >> Mike Segel >> >> On Mar 16, 2013, at 7:18 AM, Michel Segel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Isn't that what you get through add on frameworks like TSDB and Kiji ? >> Maybe not on the client side, but frameworks that extend HBase... >>> >>> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... >>> >>> Mike Segel >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2013, at 12:45 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think generally we should keep HBase a byte[] based key value store. >>>> What we should add to HBase are tools that would allow client side apps >> (or libraries) to built functionality on top of plain HBase. >>>> >>>> Serialization that maintains a correct semantic sort order is important >> as a building block, so is code that can build up correctly serialized and >> sortable compound keys, as well as hashing algorithms. >>>> >>>> Where I would draw the line is adding types to HBase itself. As long as >> one can write a client, or Filters, or Coprocessors with the tools provided >> by HBase we're good. Higher level functionality can then be built of on top >> of HBase. >>>> >>>> >>>> For example, maybe we need to add better access API to the HBase WAL in >> order to have an external library implement idempotent transactions (which >> can be used to implement 2ndary indexes). >>>> Maybe some other primitives have to be exposed in order to allow an >> external library to implement full transactions. >>>> Or we might need a statistics framework (such as the one that Jesse is >> working on). >>>> >>>> These are all building blocks that do not presume specific access >> patterns or clients, but can be used to implement them. >>>> >>>> >>>> As usual, just my $0.02. >>>> >>>> -- Lars >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 10:57 AM >>>> Subject: Re: HBase type support >>>> >>>> I'm talking about MD5, SHA1, etc. It's something explicitly mentioned >>>> in HBASE-7221. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:55 AM, James Taylor <[email protected] >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Nick, >>>>> What do you mean by "hashing algorithms"? >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/15/2013 10:11 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi David, >>>>>> >>>>>> Native support for a handful of hashing algorithms has also been >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> Do you think these should be supported directly, as opposed to using a >>>>>> fixed-length String or fixed-length byte[]? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM, David Koch <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Nick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an HBase user I would welcome this addition. In addition to the >>>>>>> proposed >>>>>>> list of datatypes A UUID/GUID type would also be nice to have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /David >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to draw your attention to HBASE-8089. The desire is to add >> type >>>>>>>> support to HBase. There are two primary objectives: make the lives >> of >>>>>>>> developers building on HBase easier, and facilitate better tools on >> top >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HBase. Please chime in with any feature suggestions you think we've >>>>>>>> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
