1993-09-21 - Re: Why RSA?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: erc@apple.com
Message Hash: faffba50e1c4fafbbedda9356e5d16d46ecf28672d3e8b2a60358fffd9853683
Message ID: <9309212105.AA22690@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <m0ofEbN-00021tC@khijol>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-21 21:10:11 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 14:10:11 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 14:10:11 PDT
To: erc@apple.com
Subject: Re: Why RSA?
In-Reply-To: <m0ofEbN-00021tC@khijol>
Message-ID: <9309212105.AA22690@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Ed Carp says:
> > Derek Zahn says:
> > > 
> > > Is there some reason that we shouldn't pick a different
> > > public key encryption algorithm than RSA to use as a
> > > freely-available standard?  The PGP docs imply that "almost"
> > > all practical such schemes are patented, implying that
> > > some are not.
> > 
> > All are patented in so far as one of the patents covers ALL public key
> > schemes. Some, like Rabin's scheme, have possible technical advantages
> > over RSA.
> How about that public key scheme they came up with in Australia a while
> back?

I don't know why I should trust it, and there are schemes I do trust
available that work fine, like Rabin's or even RSA.

> And why should RSA's patent be so construed as to cover ALL public
> key schemes?  Because Jim Bidzos says so?

No, because the patent says so. The patent might be overbroad --
indeed, I'd say that it is, but the only way to get it thrown out is
to have it reexamined or get the courts to toss it. If you have
several hundred thousand dollars available I'll gladly arrange to have
this done.