Re: Kasumi code (Was: rev 44384: ... kasumi.h ...)

[Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer
Sent: den 9 augusti 2012 21:33
To: wireshark-dev () wireshark org
Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Kasumi code (Was: rev 44384: ... kasumi.h ...)

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 04:42:31PM +0000, etxrab () wireshark org wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=44384
>
>  From Jacob Nordgren and Rishie Sharma:
>  FP: fixed so hsdsch type 1 also uses communication context id
>  
>  Added experimental conditional decryption support.
>
>   Changes    Path               Action
>   +6 -0      Custom.common      Added
>   +5 -1      Makefile.common    Modified
>   +29 -0     kasumi.h           Added
>
>   +2035 -1759 packet-rlc.c        Modified
>
> I really disagree with the following comment:
> * Note that the actual KASUMI implementation needs to be placed into
> * epan/crypt/kasumi.* by "end users" since due to patents the acutal implementation
> * cannot be distributed openly at the moment.
>
> This is plain wrong:
> If there really exists patents *that affect Wireshark*, then the code can still be put into the source tree as >long 
> as you are the copyright owner of this code.
> What would cause problems would be using (and for all practical purposes) the distribution of an *executable* 
> that uses the compiled code. To use this code, you would have to recompile Wireshark with an extra flag or a 
> configure option (this is what Mesa does regarding a floatingpoint patent or whatever).
>
> Two questions:
> 1) Are you the copyright owner of the code or is this the sample code from
>   the specs? If you are the owner, then please submit the code as well.
> 2) Which patents are this? I know there are *claims* that this is patented
>   on the website and other docs, but what are the patent numbers?
>
> Thanks
>    Jörg

Sorry I'm not sure what you are trying to say here:
> What would cause problems would be using (and for all practical purposes) the distribution of an *executable* 
> that uses the compiled code.

That would be Wireshark if the code was included, wouldn't it?

I'm not willing to committ any code as long as I'm unsure about the implications of doing so.
If some one feels confident that this is no problem they can committ code to do the decryption.

If you feel thet the dissector should not continue to go in this direction we can keep it private.

Best regards
Anders


-- 
Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer () loplof de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft 
instead of technology.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe