From: analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: dc249b33b9315921893b6904ff4984e09c54904f7a3a85a38174808c0f39baa8
Message ID: <199311280524.VAA25839@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-28 05:24:45 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 21:24:45 PST
From: analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 21:24:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: 900 Mhz phones
Message-ID: <199311280524.VAA25839@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sorry about the mistake in my question. I had quickly read an article the other
day that left the idea in my mind that Cylink was one of the two producers of
the Clipper chip, actually quite the opposite is true:
>Cylink unveiled a civilian agency alternative
>to the Clinton Administration-advocated Clipper Chip and SKIPJACK
>algorithm for data communications security, saying it has begun
>shipping a product implementation of the Data Encryption Standard
>(DES) with an IC it claims will do instantaneous triple DES
>encryption.
Coupled with the article in the Economist about them also making the chip for
at least one digital cordless phone, my latent (but growing) paranoia
about the intentions of this government with respect to our privacy jumped to
the false (??) conlusions I implied in my question.
Any more info from anyone about which of these phones might be more or
less secure? What kind of algorithms would we really like to see
implemented for wireless communications? Who's doing it? (I think there
is a story about Qualcomm wanting stronger security for their CDMA digital
cellular standard but being forced to weaken or eliminate it due to
government(?) pressure--but that may be my paranoia again...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin McLemore
analyst@netcom.com
--
Return to November 1993
Return to “ferguson@icm1.icp.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)”