mpany and you personal behaviour.
>
> Kind regards
>
> --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
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 any
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_
r.
Kind regards
--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
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 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
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 u
;
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 to
a barrage o
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 importan
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 u
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...
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. They
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 specs
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
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
documen
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 ...
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssl-users&m
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-users&m=114832209207203&w=2
Oh ... wait ... no. I don't find that
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.
> 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 f
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
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
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
| ve
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:54:02AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote:
| If a companies' lawyers tell them to restrict documentation download to
| valid organizations, that is well within their purvuew as technology
| exporters. It's far more productive to be concerned with the terms OF the
| license.
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 the
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 from up over?
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 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 w
--- "Spruell, Darren-Perot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Please support your statement that documentation falls under export
> regulations. Documentation and specifications != hardware.
[snip]
WARNING: NEWBIE ALERT, NEWBIE COMMENTS FOLLOW.
I have no dog in this fight but it only took me th
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 n
"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 i
L. V. Lammert wrote:
It's obvious you have never tried to export anything from the US with
more horsepower than a 386! ANY current technology on the 'watch list'
cannot LEAVE the country with about a weeks worth of work with the
State Deparement, Customs, et al.
If this is the case then my
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 law
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 l
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 reg
> 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
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.
Thi
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
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 th
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
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 dea
> 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 obje
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 unf
> -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 o
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
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
>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
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 fully
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
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
produc
-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: Tuesd
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 docu
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 f
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 relat
* 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 f
> -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 th
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 aver
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 l
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 unfrie
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
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. T
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 unfrie
>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 t
>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. I
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.
64 matches
Mail list logo
