[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Returned mail: Host unknown



   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 3toad.com (tcp)... 550 Host unknown
554 <[email protected]>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from name server)

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from hummingbird.CS.Arizona.EDU by optima.CS.Arizona.EDU (5.65c/15) via SMTP
	id AA23319; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 11:26:06 MST
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 11:26:04 MST
From: "Patrick G. Bridges" <bridges>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: by hummingbird.cs.arizona.edu; Sat, 17 Sep 1994 11:26:04 MST
To: [email protected]
Subject: RC4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "ritter" == ritter  <[email protected]> writes:

    ritter>  In <[email protected]>
    ritter> [email protected] (Bruce Schneier) writes:

    >> I think the smartest thing RSA Data Security, Inc could do at
    >> this point is to patent RC4.

    ritter>  Sorry, but they don't have that option.
    ritter>  When a product containing an invention is sold
    ritter> commercially, a one- year count-down starts on the patent
    ritter> application.

    ritter>  --- Terry Ritter [email protected]

So, to summarize what I've heard so far:

So, unless RSADSI had already filed for a patent, they're essentially
screwed. The algorithm is revealed, but they can't patent it. The
source posted may or may not be copyrighted, but anyone can roll their
own version which would not be copyrighted and use it freely, unless
Trade Secret law say otherwise, which I've heard several people say it
doesn't...

What has been done may or may not be criminal... If the posted code IS
RSADSI source, this is clearly a breach of copyright law...If it is a
reverse engineering job, then it's illegal if the reverse engineer had
a no-RE agreement w/ RSADSI, which may not be the case if she just
worked back from Lotus Notes, for instance...

I can't say I'm upset by the fact the algorithm itself has been made
public, since IMHO a new, fast algorithm will help the state of
academic research in cryptography, and I think most would agree that
peer review is the best way to evaluate encryption algorithms. Still,
I wonder about the effects this release will have on the net as a
whole... This release could make good scare tactic ammunition for the
pro-clipper/DigTel folks to use w/ corporations... It may also fuel
worrisome cries for regulation of the networks...

- -- 
*** Patrick G. Bridges  	     	bridge[email protected] ***
*** PGP 2.6 key available via finger *  Key Fingerprint:       ***
***      D6 09 C7 1F 4C 18 D5 18  7E 02 50 E6 B1 AB A5 2C      ***
***                #include <std/disclaimer.h>		       ***

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLns0j0oL7Aaetl5pAQFDkwP+M2cO95+jjj7cZp/6FBmplfYM7WhndGhn
AcR+NsS6UNvjU+e/q7ekRXPDAHzh4idTldrGndoUAsvVhdXJpYDOvyGyBG1e0W/c
HPLQbiNcURRDkDeTIVLLAtX1ECjmfEeBPC/2iiTq1GaivbEGCL1kq+2AS1dSu31m
EZOOOWJQe68=
=JdAM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----