On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: >> We has OpenBSD tell us: >> >> "We have never allowed US citizens or foreign citizens working in the >> US to hack on crypto code" >> http://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-tech&m=3D129237675106730&w=3D2 > > That statement remains true.
> Our project permitted American developers to work on any part of the > tree which was not specifically cryptography; in this particular > instance that includes the parts of IPSEC which are 'dual use' or 'not > related to cryptography'. We did not permit them to work on the > crypto-specific parts. > Military is clever at words and dual use for is example, dual use of technology. So is your approach: "He is not backdoor crypto! Only the portion on the network - so is your data sniffable" In all wording from OpenBSD, there is not one denial: "IPSEC is not backdoored" only word trickery: "We is full disclosing someone say IPSEC is backdoor" "We is full disclosing IPSEC is not worked on by Americans" "We is receive strange email" "We is have DARPA funding cut!" Never have we see: "OpenBSD is not backdoored" "OpenBSD audited is this code in the past" "OpenBSD is currently going back to is audit" Furthermore is fact that is as developer, one developer can seek help from another developer and this is developer who put backdoor: CryptoDeveloper = I has no idea how is to make this work RogueDeveloper = I is has this special piece of code is for you CryptoDeveloper = Is thanks! _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
