Andrew, I was aware of you employer, which I am pretty sure that they have already dealt with the issue of exporting encryption software and probably hardware too.
Neither of us are lawyers and what I do know of dealing with the government bureaucracies, it's not always as simple of just filing the correct paperwork. (Sometimes it is, sometimes not so much, YMMV...) Putting the hooks for encryption is probably a good idea. Shipping the encryption w the release or making it part of the official release, not so much. Sorry, I'm being a bit conservative here. IMHO I think fixing other issues would be of a higher priority, but that's just me;-) Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos... Mike Segel On Mar 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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 ? > > Well I can't put that question aside since you've brought it up now > twice and encryption feature candidates for Apache Hadoop and Apache HBase > are something I have been working on. Its a valid question but since as you > admit you don't know what you are talking about, perhaps stating uninformed > opinions can be avoided. Only the latter is what I object to. I think the > short answer is as an Apache contributor I'm concerned about the Apache > product. Downstream repackagers can take whatever action needed including > changes, since it is open source, or feedback about it representing a > hardship. At this point I have heard nothing like that. I work for Intel > and can say we are good with it. > > On Sunday, March 17, 2013, Michael Segel wrote: > >> 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 <apurt...@apache.org> 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 <michael_se...@hotmail.com> >>>> 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 <la...@apache.org> 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 <ndimi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> To: user@hbase.apache.org >>>>>> 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 < >> jtay...@salesforce.com >>>>> 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 > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
