no surprise - Sun fails to open source the crypto part of Java

[Ian G]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> Subject: Re: no surprise - Sun fails to open source the crypto part of Java
> 
> Were you not surprised because you knew that said source is encumbered,
> or because you think Sun has some nefarious motive to not open source
> that code?


Third option:  the architecture of Sun's Java crypto 
framework is based on motives that should have been avoided, 
and have come back to bite (again).

The crypto framework in Java as designed by Sun was built on 
  motives (nefarious, warped or just plain stupid, I don't 
know) such as

* the need or desire to separate out encryption from 
authentication, and deliver two compatible but varying 
implementations in one variable body of code.  With a 
switch.  Somewhere.
* some notion that crypto code should be ("must be") a 
competitive market, one that is created by Sun, and is 
controlled by Sun.
* circular dependency where we have to install a signed 
provider which means we need signing which means we need 
crypto ...
* Being dependent on PKI style certificates for signing, so 
for example, if your machine doesn't have a properly 
configured domain name, touching the crypto caused DNS 
timeouts ... (1.5 from memory, might be fixed).

Hence, the framework is clumsy in practice, and trying to 
change it (in any way) was likely to run into roadblocks at 
the legal, policy and other areas like rights ...

As an aside, security is the baby that got thrown out with 
the bathwater.


> If the latter then keep in mind that you can find plenty of crypto code
> in OpenSolaris, which, unless you think the CDDL does not qualify as
> open source, is open source.  I've no first hand knowledge, but I
> suspect that the news story you quoted from is correct: the code is
> encumbered and Sun couldn't get the copyright holders to permit release
> under the GPL in time for the release of Java source under the GPL.


The real interest was whether there was any difficulty in 
modifying the source code to add in the parts needed.  As 
Florian points out (thanks!), it is Sun's Provider that has 
not been delivered.

This is good, that is the part that is intended to be 
replaceable, so any of the Cryptix or Bouncy Castle or IAIK 
providers can be easy alternatives.

My worry was that they hadn't open sourced the architecture 
component, the part that wasn't meant to be replaceable. 
However even if open sourced, Sun may still wield a stick 
over the providers by insisting that they manage the signing 
process for the providers.

(This is in effect what open source organisations like 
Mozilla do with their source.  There is a tiny hook in there 
that stops people from changing the root list.)


iang

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com