Re: Encrypted File systems implementation into the kernel?

[Marc Mutz]

"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> 
> Followup to:  <[e-mail]>
> By author:    Marc Mutz <[e-mail]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > >
> > > Not IDEA, since it has patent and licensing restrictions.
> > >
> > Well, AFAIK, IDEA is free for non-commercial use. I don't see a big
> > problem there.
> >
> 
> Thank you, I want to be able to use Linux for commercial use!
<snip>

Eric Lemar wrote:
> 
> I'd say its a rather big problem since in this case "non-commercial" means
> data transfer from one individual to another ONLY...  Any use of any
> product that in any way involves an organization(whether internal or
> external use and whether the use is by a for-profit or a non-profit
> organization) requires a license, so its certainly not suitable for
> linux...
> 
> http://www.ascom.ch/infosec/idea/policy.html
> 
<snip>

Okay, so pay the licence or not use IDEA. If I happen to want to use
IDEA for encrypting my /dev/loop on my home box, why not (I don't, I use
Blowfish)? IIRC, you can implement IDEA any way you like, as long as you
pay if you use it in a way Eric explained. All I'm saying is that there
are legitimate uses for IDEA that do not require you to pay and it is no
problem to make an GPLed implementation part of the kernel (please
correct me if I'm wrong).

Apart from the pros and cons of particular ciphers: Do we share the
opinion that the kernel Crypto-API should not be limited to a single
cipher (e.g. AES)?

Marc

-- 
Marc Mutz <[e-mail]>        http://marc.mutz.com/Encryption-HOWTO/
University of Bielefeld, Dep. of Mathematics / Dep. of Physics

PGP-keyID's:   0xd46ce9ab (RSA), 0x7ae55b9e (DSS/DH)