tir, 27 04 2010 kl. 19:20 -0400, skrev Carnë Draug: > On 27 April 2010 17:11, Søren Hauberg <[email protected]> wrote: > tor, 22 04 2010 kl. 07:38 +0200, skrev David Bateman: > > Octave includes the MD5 hashing algorithm and > uses /dev/random if > > available in the core of Octave and there is an > implementation of SHA1 > > in the octave-forge package general.. These are about the > only crypto > > like functions that I know of in Octave, MD5 and SHA1 are > hashing > > unctions and not crypto at all > > > Okay, then I don't think we can forgo the US export control. > > Thanks > Søren > > We can't? But if I understood it correctly, David said that they are > not related to encryption, just hashing.
I've always thought of SHA1 as an encryption tool as it is (citing the Wikipedia page) a "cryptographic hash function". Re-reading David's reply (it seems I didn't read it properly; I just saw that we have a SHA1 implementation) tells me that there is nothing cryptographic about SHA1. Is that really true? I mean, it's part of the DSA, right? > Also, if we couldn't be above that US rule, would staying in > sourceforge be a preferable option than hinder and/or block access of > some people to free software (which I guess would not be free > anymore)? Hold on. There are two issues here. 1) Are we distributing something that would make us violate US Export control? 2) If so, how should we react? Can we please deal with 1) before dealing with 2) ? Personally, I find the US Export control to be stupid at best, but I am not going to break it. I am also ridiculously low on time, so I am not going to spend hundreds of hours migrating to a different host unless we really have to. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
