Hifn Restricts Crypto Docs, OpenBSD Opens Fire 304
Mhrmnhrm writes "After totally closing off public access to documentation for their chips roughly five years ago, Hifn is again offering them, but with an invasive registration requirement. Needless to say, Theo de Raadt and the rest of the OpenBSD team were not amused, and following a Hifn manager's missive, the gauntlet has been thrown. Either open the docs fully, or be removed from the system. This wouldn't be the first time... the same thing happened to both Adaptec and Intel following similar spats."
Go Theo. (Score:4, Funny)
This should get really interesting.
Re:Go Theo. (Score:2)
Re:Go Theo-Batter up. (Score:5, Interesting)
OS developers' desires for unfettered acces, etc. No personal info should need to be given to a
vendor unless he's entering into a sales relationship with them. Honestly- too much risk of Identity
Theft through this sort of thing.
Seriously, I'd have to agree with him on this one- and I'm from the Linux camp and would be driving
sales into that segment very shortly. I'd be making a big stink about it too. And what's sad about
all these vendors is that they're doing nothing but pissing off the people that'd be helping them
sell chips.
In reality, the vendors are doing this because idiot IP lawyers tell them to do so. There should
be no IP revealed in the systems interfaces to a device. It should be the silicon equivalent to
an API. If there is IP honestly revealed, then you've got something new, and the patent itself
should be sufficient to protect it. If you're trying to hide a design flaw by not revealing info-
don't. You should design devices with interfaces that make sense and are system safe or can be made
so with the right device driver code.
Keeping it secretive helps nobody in reality. For example, ATI's drivers work adequately on the
desktop space but are less performant on at least part of the laptop line under Linux- because of
a design/coding flaw in the closed source drivers. I can't reccomend anyone get a laptop with an
ATI based display because they just don't seem to work as well. If someone had source code and
technical data access they could most likely fix the problems in question- unless the chip had a
design hickey. Even then, unless it's something that would compromise security, it should be
able to be coded around- Windows drivers can do Sideport memory correctly, why can't the Linux
support do the same thing?
At any rate, I believe I've drifted from the conversation... Yes Theo's got a niche play- but
in the segment that Hifn's in, it's an important one all the same.
Time... (Score:3, Insightful)
By my math... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this worth throwing a hissy fit over? Once one person downloads the docs, they can distribute them.
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Insightful)
Implication: they are collecting the data in case they're asked to provide it. To the US Govt. Yeah, that'
Re:By my math... [export control] (Score:2)
Whether or not one thinks that the US government is becoming paranoid and over-secretive (I do), this is not an unreasonable definition of export. E.g., if one just gives c
Re:By my math... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Is this worth throwing a hissy fit over?
And I count one (1) principle at stake.
Which is *always* worth throwing a fit over.
Re:By my math... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Insightful)
A company lies about being required by law not to export this data outside of the US...and then lies that it is completely open...
Pray tell why Theo says he can get the same information from other us crypto chip makers without this sam
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be fine if they were writing homebrew XBox games. Maintainers of major operating system distributions, on the other hand, have to be very careful about complying with licenses.
And did you even read the email? Hifn wants de Raadt to play along and pretend that their docs are open. They think that they deserve special treatment over all the other manufacturers in the industry, probably in order to collect data to sell on to marketers.
I
Re:By my math... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to sign an NDA to get the documents. So you would be violating the NDA to redistribute them.
There isn't a business advantage to this sort of secrecy because your competitors can easily obtain this same information through a blind. So it comes down to policy motivated by irrational fear & greed. Who needs to really deal with company with these qualities?
This topic is of primary interest to me because I am shopping for a crypto accelerator card right now, for use in the fall. Given the success and ease I have had using OpenBSD, and given the great support I have from the mailing lists, this is a reasonable criterion to use when purchasing hardware. In fact at some point of the decision making process for all of my hardware I have done a search on the OpenBSD mailing lists. This sort of information makes installation and maintenance a simple thing.
So it really does boil down to unless the OpenBSD group recommends a certain piece of hardware I won't buy it...
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Informative)
You are wrong. I just filled out their form and got immediate access to the spec sheets, no NDA required. The form asked if I had an existing NDA and I said "no". It didn't complain. I was automatically e-mailed a password which gave me immediate access to the 7956 Security Accelerator data sheet, no questions asked.
The data sheet itself is copyright and does say you can't redistribute without permission
I don't know if Theo reads Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:By my math... (Score:2)
When you've lost, declare victory & go home [slashdot.org]?
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:By my math... (Score:3, Informative)
Take the computer software analogy: just because IE is released for free for everyone to download, it does not
Theo (Score:5, Insightful)
Oi, Theo! I agree with you 100%, but please, tone down the virtiol just a smidge! From TFA:
Calling their products "crummy" and threatening them with driver deletion if they don't stop "baiting" you is not a way to get what you want. Now it means some egomaniacal manager has to eat crow for the driver to go public. I was in 100% agreement with your post until I got to this point.
Sometimes, I wish someone would just slip some sort of tranquilizer in the water supply near Alberta...
Re:Theo (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people just do not listen unless you threaten them like this. It must've been the last straw..
Re:Theo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Theo (Score:2)
If you're like that at 20, you'll very likely be even less temperate at 40. Once middle age sets in, you have new depths of vitriol and angst to add. If they can survive to their 70s without popping a valve or getting murdered, they may finally start to mellow.
Re:Theo (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at the NetBSD issue, Theo was bitching about developers who kept introducing security holes - I dunno about you, but I'd bitch slap people who keep introducing security holes too, else you end up with something like Windows.
Re:Theo (Score:3, Informative)
Repeated contacts are attempted, and vendors ignore them.
More contacts are attempted, and maybe a low-level person says, "I'll check into it"...and then vanishes.
This goes on for some time before things are brought public.
Publicly pointing out the idiocy of a corporate policy is an absolute last step. The potential for dammage is recognized, but by that point, it really doesn't matter. The "nice and quiet" approach has been tried, f
Re:Theo (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Theo (Score:2, Insightful)
but he is only further alienating people who are outside the project already.
There needs to be more of this kind of plain talk. I have great respect for
these types of character who speak straight and openly mock officious business
and legal nonsense. I have the greatest respect for the PirateBay practice
of posting the laughable legal notices they receive along with scathing
responses. We need more of this open hostility to bullshit.
You
Re:Theo (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that Manufacturers seem to have the idea that they can dictate terms to the people who produce software to run on their hardware. Unfortunately, In the majority of cases, that appears to actually be the case.
The insulting thing in the original email was that he should be expected to comprimise his principles to support other people's profit, and as he is *not* being paid by Hifn, I personally see that it is well within his rights to not support the hardware in question.
Perhaps if you went up to some Civil rights protestor in the 1960's and said that this entire equality thing was a bit silly, and they should just accept these limitations, because its convenient for the asker, you may get a similar response.
Yes, i know this is a bit contrived, however, its worth noting that there are people who consider this sort of thing a matter of Civil rights. The right to be able to do whatever you want with the electronics in your computer, as opposed to what someone you have never met tells you.
Some people do consider this sort of thing a huge insult, and if putting it in plain language offends you enough that you dont use open source software, then i feel sorry for you. Your missing out on a lot of great software written by people who love what they do, however thats your choice.
Re:Theo (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you don't ask, you don't get." -Mahatma Gandhi [wikiquote.org]
Re:Theo (Score:3, Insightful)
That's far more acceptable than being rude to someone who was being extremely patient.
Please. You have no idea what was said in private emails and such. If you read the mailing list post, you'd see the message posted by the Hifn employee talks about keeping the source code propriet
Re:Theo (Score:3, Insightful)
Adults are children with breeding rights.
Re:Theo (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, "we" had a lot of that stuff (the Mossad was the world expert on killing people via cell phone), it's just that at that time the US hadn't attacked and occupied Iraq, so those things mostly weren't happening to Americans.
Consider it a neccesary evil of sorts. Not our fault, just a result of terror.
You're right that it's an evil, but it's not necessary. You don't think "bad people" can get copies of the data sheets? That's stupid. I can think of half a dozen ways to get the info, and you probably can too. Besides, you can't build a bomb from a chip data sheet. And on the other side of the coin, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information will be used only for export control. Or, as far as that goes, even for legal purposes, since Bush has made it clear that he views himself and his security forces as above the law.
People who put their life on the line (IEDs) while you confortably sit back and code.
I feel terrible about that. But the thing is, they're not doing it for me (whatever they may think), because Iraq never was a threat to me. Bush & Cheney didn't invade Iraq because of terrorism, they did it for political reasons. And they didn't do it to "free the Iraqis", because there are any number of other countries whose governments are even more oppressive, but remain unattacked.
Before the attack, Iraqis lived under a thuggish dictator who killed thousands. They also had electricity, women could work outside the home, and they could drive their cars without fear of being stopped and killed at some random checkpoint or machine-gunned by panicky American troops. Today, the thousands are instead killed by US troops, Interior Ministry death squads, religious militias, Al Quaida, and random car bombs. And there's not much electricity.
I don't know what the answers are, but I'm positive that collecting identifying info on people who want to look at chip data sheets is not one of them.
Well, theres a surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
i) is basically right
ii) still manages to sound like spoiled whiny tosser in the process.
Re:Well, theres a surprise. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: naw (Score:2)
You're right—not much surprise on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he doesn't. /. readers probably have so little practice speaking truth to power that they don't recognize what it looks like when it's laid out before them. The only non-surprise here is that another /. poster is finding a way to criticize those who defend our freedom to share and modify by speaking up and acting out. It's much like the overrated comments on the recent RMS in France thread [slashdot.org] where RMS
Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:5, Interesting)
From Theo's response:
Theo is essentially taking the position that personal information is tantamount to currency, and therefore, requesting personal info is tantamount to charging...hence, HIFN can no longer be considered Open Source. This position may currently be confined to OSS in general and the HIFN question in particular, but it's not difficult to imagine this argument generalized to apply to any situation in which an entity requests personal information. Personal info needs to be treated as the valuable commodity that it is...kudos to Theo for taking a stand on this issue.
Theo also addreses something many of us here are worried about:
Even disregarding the 'personal info == currency' argument outlined above, this objection stands on its own. HIFN is basically stating that yes, the info gathered will be handed over to the U.S. government on request, to satisfy their licensing requirements. This alone is a deal-breaker.
Theo sums his entire argument up beautifully here:
Well said, Theo. I for one don't care to support a company who engages in such practices, and I would rather see no support for a product than half-assed support, because the driver writers were not allowed full, unfettered access to the data sheets.
And finally from Theo's response:
Don't just say it, Theo, do it. If you stand by your statement, then HIFN has no place in the source tree, and should be deleted immediately.
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:2)
Well, it would appear that a condition of obtaining an export licence for their products is that they be able to identify their customers. This condition was stipulated by the US government (or an agency thereof), so it would appear that Hifn had a choice: agree, or not export their products.
From what I've read so far at least, it would appear that you do not care to support a company that complies with the law and demands of its governm
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it would appear that a condition of obtaining an export licence for their products is that they be able to identify their customers.
This is entirely beside the point. The driver writers are not customers.
Documentation of a product is not restricted by export licenses pertaining to that product...only the product itself is restricted.
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:3, Insightful)
Theo isn't asking for a product. He is asking for documentation (data sheets). Further, as the email points out, he isn't looking for documentation regarding unreleased products, etc. but for documentation that was *freely* available eight years ago. Additionally he points out that other *crypto* companies provide information that is more available. What is unclear to me though is whether or not those companies he vaguely mentions are US companies.
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:2)
What you're missing (aside from what the other replies have said) is that a third party's compliance with the law is not OpenBSD's problem. If compliance with US law and OpenBSD's polices are mutually exclusive, then Hifn is either simply screwed, or should move to another country. OpenBSD, however, should not be obligated to change policy.
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:2)
I think you are taking it too far. It's much more simplistic than that.
Open means just that: Open. By using a closed registration-required access system, it's not open.
Given our current government's "anti-terrorism" activities which is turning the US into a police state, is VERY likely that companies will be required to devulge this registration inf
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:2)
I think you are taking it too far. It's much more simplistic than that.
I think you might be right...but I would still like to see this become a sounding-board for the issue of personal data as commodity. Codifying how personal data can be collected, how the data can bee stored and used, and especially how the owners will be compensated for the loss or misuse of said data, can only be beneficial, especially in this day and age.
Given our current government's "anti-terrorism" activities which is turning the US
Re:Personal Info == Legal Tender (Score:2)
Considering that marketers and their ilk pay handsomely for personal data, legitimately obtained or otherwise, it's safe to say that personal information isn't just tantamount to currency. It has a concrete monetary value. They are charging you, in a very real sense. You could seel your personal in
Can hifn comply with OpenBSD's demands? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question that should be answered is whether hifn are indeed required by law to ask personal information of the people downloading documentation, as hifn claims they are.
If they are, than hifn simply cannot comply with OpenBSD's demands without breaking U.S. law.
Re:Can hifn comply with OpenBSD's demands? (Score:3, Interesting)
Export regulations? (Score:3, Insightful)
With a choice between "make Theo happy" and "violate export regulations" it doesn't seem like Hifn is exactly trying to "bait" Theo or OpenBSD.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll be the first to admit I may be missing something obvious, but would genuinely appreciate being told what it is. In affable tones, if it's not too much to ask.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK (and IANAL), detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws. Cryptographic technology actually falls under an even more restrictive license class - munitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptograp
Read the "Current Status" section. My point is that Hifn isn't "baiting" anyone. You might disagree with their lawyer or think it's your right to demand that Hifn fight "the man", but that's another issue.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIK (and IANAL), detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws.
Please post links supporting this contention, or withdraw it.
Cryptographic technology actually falls under an even more restrictive license class - munitions.
Whle this is true, the source code can still be legally exported in written format, since it falls under Free Speech.
From this article [goingware.com]:
Given that, as you stated, crypto falls under the even more restrictive license class of 'munitions', if you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too.
My point is that the HIFN's explanation of their requirement for personal info to satisfy their U.S. export license is pure codswallop, your nonsensical comments about HIFN 'fighting the man' notwithstanding.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html [gpo.gov]
You can skip many of the "Part XXX"s. The applicable categories are obvious. Don't forget to read interpretations and supplement 2.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant, other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)
The applicable categories are obvious.
If they're so obvious, why didn't you post links to those categories, or better yet, applicable excerpts?
Don't forget to read interpretations
Fair enough...I read through Part 770 - Interpretations [gpo.gov], but strangely enough, the word 'documentation' is only used once in the entire document. I've posted the relevant passage for clarity:
Please explain how the above supports your contention that 'detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws'.
and supplement 2.
Which supplement 2? The Supplement No. 2 to Part 764 - Denied Persons List [gpo.gov], or the Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes [gpo.gov]? (HINT: Neither supplement contains anything to support your contention that 'detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws'.)
In short, it looks like you thought you could try to justify your argument by pointing me to a ridiculously large government document, and then hoping I wouldn't bother to actually read it. You thought wrong.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant,
Translation: I can't refute it, so I'll shut my eyes and pretend it's not there.
other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.
And this from the person who qualified their original contention with 'AFAIK' and "IANAL'. Pot, meet kettle.
Re:Export regulations? (Score:4)
If they're so obvious, why didn't you post links to those categories, or better yet, applicable excerpts?
Laziness. Category 5pt2, and 4 & 5pt1 also. Look how broad ITAR 120.10 is (and according to another poster in the thread they can also classify info as a "service" and use those sections).
In short, it looks like you thought you could try to justify your argument by pointing me to a ridiculously large government document, and then hoping I wouldn't bother to actually read it. You thought wrong.
I thought right. It looks like you searched a couple of sections for the word "documentation" without even trying to follow it. Understanding "ridiculously large" and complex laws that put people in jail is hard, that's why lawyers get paid big.
other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.
And this from the person who qualified their original contention with 'AFAIK' and "IANAL'. Pot, meet kettle.
Or with more thought and less attitude you might infer that I take my own advice.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant,
Translation: I can't refute it, so I'll shut my eyes and pretend it's not there.
Better translation: Oops, I'm wrestling a pig in mud.
Re:Maybe not? (Score:2)
They don't want source. RTFA. Theo even said he'd ignore the source if they gave it to him.
This is about data sheets. In other words, the interface a driver needs to know about to communicate with the hardware. There's no in-depth crypto stuff that needs to be in there, they don't need to know how the hardware works, they just need to know what to say to it to get it to do stuff.
The export argument
Re:Export regulations? (Score:2, Interesting)
It does raise an interesting point, should you effectively boycott a company because of the restrictions the government puts on it?
Re:Export regulations? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Export regulations? (Score:2)
Re:Export regulations? (Score:2)
And don't use Yahoo or MSN either, right? So then the question becomes, "what search engine should we use?"
Re:Export regulations? (Score:2)
Lots of people think so when it's Yahoo and the Chinese government [slashdot.org].
Re:Export regulations? (Score:5, Informative)
Hence, the docs that OpenBSD folks need (and had access to, until a few years ago) are NOT covered.
The choice is between "giving back access to documentation to allow developers to work with your hardware" or "keep track of developers for marketing purposes".
Export regulations enter the picture only if you don't know them.
Re:What do you think this is, dark ages redux? (Score:2)
Please provide links supporting this contention.
Would that not be... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would that not be on documentation that explained exactly how the chip worked and not just how to send and receive bits from it?
If this is the case with HIFN, why do some other hardare companies in the same field not have the same restrictions?
There was a good comment made later in the thread:
Perhaps you can talk to your legal counsel and actually break out the documentation needed for these open source drivers into a separate and truly open to the "general public" anonymous download site. I doubt that the documentation that is being requested by developers is putting you in violation of US Export Regulations
....snip....
I understand it's very easy these days for attorneys to just say put everything behind your registration only access extranet to be safe. This is not acceptable and, in my opinion, is not open to the general public like you stated.
That sums up my thoughts much more succinctly.
Re:What do you think this is, dark ages redux? (Score:2)
How does this sort of exaggerated response help? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he objects to providing that information, he can say so, but this sort of easily-refuted hyperbole doesn't help.
Re:How does this sort of exaggerated response help (Score:2)
Re:How does this sort of exaggerated response help (Score:2)
Sorry...that doesn't work.
Oh for pity's sake... (Score:5, Informative)
How would this violate US Export Licences???
Fine, don't export chips overseas without knowing who you're selling to, but documentation? For driver developers no less?? When Hifn themselves are trying to say that this information is open and free???
This is the key point of Theo's argument, surely: that Hifn are not at all obliged to demand this information, and therefore are going against the principles of open access/source by demanding it. Can someone please explain what I'm missing here.
Re:Oh for pity's sake... (Score:4, Interesting)
How would this violate U.S. Export Licenses
It wouldn't. Exporting documentation...even source code...is protected as Free Speech, provided the export is in book format.
From this article [goingware.com]:
If you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too. Therefore, HIFN's argument is invalid.
Re:Oh for pity's sake... (Score:2)
Gotta be some restrictions even on book format (Score:4, Interesting)
Abusive much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Abusive much? (Score:2)
Figure either way, hifn was not going to open the docs and thus not be supported. At least this way they got a bit of attention on Slashdot, a little more mindshare, etc.
Sort of, "I don't care what people say about me behind my back, as long as they're talking about me."
Re:Abusive much? (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but on the other hand, Theo really does have the upper hand on this one. If I can't use those cards under OpenBSD, I won't buy them. If I can, I probably will (because I could actually use some of that functionality in my VPN servers). Since I suspect a large part of their potential client base is in the same situation, it'd be in their best financial interests to go meet Theo's (reasonable) requests and stay stop arguing the point.
Re:Abusive much? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mean this as a joke. Often the *only* way to get vendors to do what you want is -- minimally -- to verbally abuse them, and often to threaten them. And if they're real wankers, to threaten them with bad publicity. And if they're super-wankers (which so many of them are), to actually start talking about them publically.
Sure, doing it this way is a gamble -- he may piss them off so much that they stop communicating. Some vendors (the rational ones) deal
Give it a rest, Theo. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what, if you'd wanted this 15 years ago, you would have phoned them up, given them the EXACT SAME INFO THEY'RE ASKING FOR on their web site, and they would have mailed it to you.
And a sales-person might have called to see if you wanted to buy some chips.
Theo's "50 questions" is email, name, company name, title, address, phone number, and "what is your project? What is your role? When do you want to buy some chips?" How about a little reality here. Theo does some great stuff, but that doesn't mean he gets to bend how the world works to his will.
Just like the "I don't get any donations" rant from him a bit ago, he just doesn't seem to be well grounded in business realities. If you want donations, you need a tax-exempt foundation, not "make checks out to Theo." If you want data sheets, you might have to tell the company who you are and why you want them.
Re:Give it a rest, Theo. (Score:2)
A moot point, since developers are *NOT* guarenteed to remain on the project for 8 years.
If the docs are not available, then only the developers who managed to obtain the docs legally can consider working on that portion of the code. No new developers means that support will drop sooner or later - might as well drop it right away rather than wait for it to enter disrepair.
Re:Give it a rest, Theo. (Score:2)
Yeah, and the GP's point was that in those 15yrs the personal info you provided for marketing purposes to get the docs _hasn't_ changed:
>> 15 years ago, you would have phoned them up, given them the EXACT SAME INFO
In those 15yrs what has changed is that in some jurisdictions at least (eg. EU, but probably not US) you do now have more rights over the personal info companies keep on you and how they use it. Including not allowi
Re:Give it a rest, Theo. (Score:4, Interesting)
HIFN might make their documentation available to the (USA) public,
but if it is released under restrictive NDA language, it is hardly "OSS-
friendly". Is OpenBSD supposed to bundle binary-only drivers, with
the MS-inspired adage "Trust us, we know what's best for you?"
I think not!
Imagine your level of trust in OpenBSD drivers that you cannot even
see the source code to, let alone be forced to go back to the OEM for
man / info pages. HIFN has far exceeded any legal requirement that
USA Export Control regulations impose, and Theo has rightfully called
them out for their current nonsensical position. This is not about HIFN
furnishing proprietary SystemC or ERDA(?) data that would reveal the
construction of the chipset or the crypto algorythms involved -- this
is about data on how to fully interface to the chipset's I/O. There is
no valid reason for OpenBSD (or any other open source OS) to continue
to support HIFN. In fact, I woudn't mind seeing kernel code included that
would fail to build with HIFN support, sort of like has been discussed on
regarding locking out the SCO OS.
Re:Give it a rest, Theo. (Score:3, Insightful)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw.
Whinge whinge whinge.. (Score:4, Informative)
past, but because your policies are privacy invasive towards us, and
thus completely thankless for the sales that we have given you in the
past -- we will not spend any more time on your crummy products."
Sales?
Unless Theo can give a decent estimate of how much 'sales' OpenBSD has 'given' them, I doubt the upper brass at Hifn cares about Theo's whinging.
If you want drivers for "less mainstream OS'es", please attach your request to a large multi-mega-million part order from <insert vendor here>. If you don't believe me, we'll, the only reason NVIDIA's Linux support is miles ahead of ATI is due to the demand from Hollywood setups to use high-end-5000%-margin professional cards on Linux, not geeks on Slashdot playing Tuxracer.
Re:Whinge whinge whinge.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of their customers were BSD users. It's quite a common OS in the sort of application this chip is designed for.
If you don't believe me, we'll, the only reason NVIDIA's Linux support is miles ahead of ATI is due to the demand from Hollywood setups to use high-end-5000%-margin professional cards on Linux, not geeks on Slashdot p
Re:Whinge whinge whinge.. (Score:3, Informative)
HiFn chips are used in the crypto accelerators made by Soekris Engineering [soekris.com]. OpenBSD running on one of their embedded PC boards along with one of their crypto accelerator cards is quite a popular combination.
Re:Whinge whinge whinge.. (Score:2)
If you're doing hardware crypto you're going custom and using BSD wouldn't be a far stretch.
Tom
registration is better than no registration (Score:3, Insightful)
Some other vendors hide a restrictive license ("if you look at this, we own stuff you do with it") somewhere in the documentation or behind a "Read This License" link, but people who look at the documentation never notice.
Theo is the man (Score:3)
50 personal questions sounds way beyond overkill. I've downloaded plenty of export controlled software, with merely a few questions.
My guess is, Hifn like many other companies, gives everything to their sales folks, or worse, resells it. Can you blame Theo for taking offense, when they want 50 personal questions answered?
BTW, is this the signup? http://extranet.hifn.com/home/anonymous/?workflow
"50 personal questions"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone has to take a stand... (Score:2)
Kudos to Theo and the openBSD team
J.
Data-Mining made easy (Score:2)
Re:Data-Mining made easy (Score:2)
The problem is sales/marketting people rarely understand their product let alone the culture it targets.
You don't see many Windows people really clamouring over crypto accelerators. It's usually something that is custom and the people buying it are technically inclined. At
Sign up (Score:2, Insightful)
I have signed up, the confirmation arrived within seconds and on the welcome is a message it may take several hours for a sysadmin to allow access - but no, I'm downloading PDF's straight away so it must be automated.
It's just marketing; but
If only Linux People would do this! (Score:2)
Bad vendor policy = bad devices drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Be sure that - whatever the OS you use, being Linux, OpenBSD or FreeBSD -, when a vendor behaves that bad and is so reluctant in providing open access to documentation, you won't have a good driver nor a good support.
Those vendors behaviours are usually symptoms of a "closed" attitude, secrecy centerd, so even when we accept NDA, we can't expect them to disclose the whole needed informations (like, say, all firmwares versions bugs that needs a workaround in drivers level, know bad behaviour of their chipsets etc). This attitude will also discourage some knowledgeable developers to help to improve the driver, to fix bugs etc. Requiring NDA will prevent OSS kernel developers to share sensitive informations regarding their experience with the device (between OS, and even sometime inside the same kernel dev team).
So for now, if you need a stable encryption accelerator device, consider choosing an other vendor. Look out for Via C3, or SafeNet (and even some Broadcom) chipsets: those vendors plays the game well, don't seat on their customers (we) and the developers needs. They don't even hide behind a "U.S. export laws restrictions" argument, and didn't faced trials, proving the hypocrisy of HiFn assertions.
export license restriction (Score:2)
Simple solution to a stupid problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just give bogus information.
Everybody does! [brandrepublic.com]
Theo should never talk (Score:4, Insightful)
He is right in principal in many cases, however he has absolutely no talent when it comes to voicing that principal. OpenBSD seriously need a PR person that knows how to deal with actual people, you know with a hint of tact, cause he doesnt have any whatsoever.
Thanks, but no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, Hank. But I reserve the right to not use proprietary crypto code in sensitive applications - which are the only ones that I'd actually buy hardware acceleration for in the first place.
Let's get this straight: there's a world of difference between closed video card drivers and closed crypto drivers. Many of us are squeamish about about the former, so why would you think we'd cheerfully accept the latter? A closed source video driver could potentially crash my non-networked game machine. A closed source encryption accelerator cold potentially open my VPN server to the whole world.
I hope you can appreciate the community's position here, but whether you agree with it or not is immaterial. Should you change your opinion to better mesh with that of your would-be customers, please let us know. Many of us would like to buy your products if they become usable for our applications.
Re:Rogue video drivers on non-networked machines (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, we all have our limits. Some people worry, and justifiably so, that their BIOS isn't open. I'm somewhere in the middle in that I use the proprietary NVidia drivers, even though I don't like it. I'd think that everyone, though, would agree that the crypto engine is the absolute last thing you want to cede control of.
Re:Theo's behavior doesn't help the cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have the choice, I run OpenBSD on servers because when it fits, it fits like a glove. If Theo acts like everyone else and just rolls over when a suit tells him no, OpenBSD would be just like every other Linux/BSD distro. This sort of attention to details (in both software and licenses) makes OpenBSD distictive. In marketing-speak, this is called 'developing a niche'. Within its niche, OpenBSD has no equal. If it looses its niche, then it will loose its market share. So I think the best thing Theo can do is to be Theo.
You read it wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed one IMPORTANT detail in this- the documentation to drive the chip is NOT covered under Export Regulations.
Only the drivers their OEMS bundle WITH the cards, any technical documentation talking to algos, AND the chip itself
are covered by Export Regulations. They don't have a need to restrict the SDK info for that reason.
Once you understand that, this becomes more of a businessman trying to "protect" purported IP type thing.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not baiting you. I'm just stating that if someone does more than the average person is willing or able to do he can go crow about it a bit.
As in... If a scientist cured AIDs or cancer tomorrow, he can kick a puppy or two and we should be able to look past that.
This is of course relative to your position on absolute and relative morality, but if someone does something for me out of his
Re:Is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in the kernel tree, but there is a third-party driver available. My understanding from associates who work with the Linux version is it isn't as feature-rich as the OpenBSD driver, and those who develop on it are also frustrated by Hifn's new policies.
What percentage of their customers rely on OpenBSD support? Who are they more loyal to, Hifn for the hardware or OpenBSD for the OS?
As someone who works for a place that uses crypto cards, I can tell you: we are more bound to the OS than the crypto hardware. There's a lot of different crypto hardware on the market, but if you want to do any kind of hardcore embedded systems development using a POSIX API, there aren't a lot of choices out there.
Re:This doesn't hurt Hifn much at all (Score:3, Insightful)
You may also have noticed how many people point out that when you are dealing with cryptography or security, you deal with OpenBSD.