So in general OpenOffice supports encryption and digital signatures
and https/SSL. So we have support for standard algorithms, from
oneway hashes like SHA1, to block encryption like Blowfish and
AES256, to public key cryptography per the W3C's XML Digital
Signatures. We also support legacy Microsoft Office encryption
algorithms that are generally weaker and used only for backwards
compatibility.
I'm not a crypto expert, so I'm not sure what something exotic would
look like. I think the strongest thing we have is AES256.
Rob
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Rob Weir <rob@robweir.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Following the instructions[3], step 1 is to work out whether OOo has
>>>> any unusual cryptography beyond ECCN 5D002, which is:
>>>>
>>>> <blockquote cite='http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html#classify>
>>>> Software specially designed or modified for the development,
>>>> production or use of any of the other software of this list, or
>>>> software designed to certify other software on this list; or
>>>> Software using a "symmetric algorithm" employing a key length in
>>>> excess of 56bits; or
>>>> Software using an "asymmetric algorithm" where the security of the
>>>> algorithm is based on: factorization of integers in excess of 512 bits
>>>> (e.g., RSA), computation of discrete logarithms in a multiplicative
>>>> group of a finite field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g.,
>>>> DiffieHellman over Z/pZ), or other discrete logarithms in a group in
>>>> excess of 112 bits (e.g., DiffieHellman over an elliptic curve).
>>>> </blockquote>
>>>>
>>>> Does OOo rely on cryptography more exotic than this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is where it seems backwards to me. If I'm reading this
>>> correctly, we are OK if we use a symmetrical algorithm with key length
>>> greater than ("in excess of") 56bits. But if we use an algorithm,
>>> with less thanb 56bits we're considered exotic? Really?
>>>
>>> For example, Calc has a ROT13() spreadsheet function, which
>>> undoubtedly is a weak symmetrical encryption technique, certainly not
>>> one with a key length in excess of 56bits.
>>>
>>> So what now? In other words, I'm puzzled by the "in excess" part.
>>> They seem to be saying that strong encryption is regulated less than
>>> weak encryption.
>>>
>>> Could you explain where I'm getting this wrong?
>>
>>
>> It looks to me like the key phrase is "any unusual cryptography beyond
>> ECCN 5D002", and the definition of that phrase is the cited block, as
>> opposed to the cited block being a definition of ECCN 5D002.
>>
>> I am having a remarkably hard time finding a definition of ECCN 5D002.
>
> EAR 740.13(e) should be on
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=bad7a54a31430303e17ce648c13e51b3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:2.1.3.4.25&idno=15#15:2.1.3.4.25.0.1.13
>
> Robert
>
