openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Request dev help: Info for required crypto export declaration
Date Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:31:01 GMT
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I'm not aware of any "legacy encryption" in non-ODF formats being supported on output
or input.  I must try that.
> Rob,
> Is it your understanding that http is implemented directly in OpenOffice, or is the platform
provider of http: and https: schemes relied upon?  I would be amazed to learn that
deals with SSL certifications, but I guess I should be prepared for anything.

It is still declarable even if we are simply enabled for using a 3rd
party service.  So, for example, if we make calls into an OS-level URL
protocol handler that negotiates SSL for https URL's, then that would
count.  That is my reading of it.

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:32
> To:
> Subject: Re: Request dev help: Info for required crypto export declaration
> So in general OpenOffice supports encryption and digital signatures
> and https/SSL.  So we have support for standard algorithms, from
> one-way hashes like SHA-1, to block encryption like Blowfish and
> AES-256,  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 AES-256.
> -Rob
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Donald Whytock <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> Following the instructions[3], step 1 is to work out whether OOo has
>>>>> any unusual cryptography beyond ECCN 5D002, which is:
>>>>> <blockquote cite='>
>>>>>   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 56-bits; 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.,
>>>>> Diffie-Hellman over Z/pZ), or other discrete logarithms in a group in
>>>>> excess of 112 bits (e.g., Diffie-Hellman 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") 56-bits.  But if we use an algorithm,
>>>> with less thanb 56-bits 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 56-bits.
>>>> 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
>> Robert

View raw message