From: baumbach@atmel.com (Peter Baumbach)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 11:23:31 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: the public key minefield
Message-ID: <9309221759.AA09589@bass.chp.atmel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>  derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn)
> >* in broad terms, what would I have to do to develop an
> >  algorithm that works from a user's perspective like
> >  p.k.c. (ie public/private keys, the central functional
> >  point of all the wonderful schemes based on pkc) but
> >  doesn't violate patents?
L. Detweiler writes:
> others have well addressed how patent issues are involved in this. but
> this appears to be a simple technical question on one level. What does
> it take to come up with a good public key system?

How about a poor public key system?  What is the simplest public key
system you can invent, if you didn't care that it is trivial to break?
If the NSA can crack RSA, does that change the fact that it is a pkc?

message=99

public_key= 1/3
private_key= 3

encrypted_message= message * public_key
message= encrypted_message * private_key

Would PKP reading of their patent claims cover this pkc?  Seems overbroad!

Peter Baumbach
baumbach@atmel.com