Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.

[Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>]

On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Rich Salz wrote:

> As I said in my original message about Pegasus:
> 	The NSA consider this kind of thing "crypto with a hole"
> 	It's stupid, the hole is the crypto.  But, the rest of
> 	the code is considered by the Agency to be an "ancilliary
> 	device" as defined under ITAR.

The interesting question is how narrow the interface has to be before it 
becomes in violation of the ITAR. Is the key question whether the "holes" 
are specifically designed for the insertion of cryptographic materials, 
or is it the fact that they could be used to support cryptographic 
enhancements?