cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-05-25 - Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?

Header Data

From: Linn Stanton <lstanton@sten.lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7e39375a5bb1f680f3f53c9c0ec252970cb4dfd01db58360879f164bd55d8c1d
Message ID: <9405251337.AA07048@sten.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9405250243.AA03397@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-25 13:36:51 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 May 94 06:36:51 PDT

Raw message

From: Linn Stanton <lstanton@sten.lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 94 06:36:51 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
In-Reply-To: <9405250243.AA03397@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>
Message-ID: <9405251337.AA07048@sten.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9405250243.AA03397@acacia.itd.uts.EDU.AU>you write:
  > As the RSA patent is expected to expire in the coming years, one would
  > expect the liberation of PGP, at least in terms of the RSA algorithm
  > (negating the export control issues). The sinister fact of PGP 2.6, and
  > other derived RSAREF product is that even as the patent itself expires,
  > RSADSI still exerts control over PGP by way of RSAREF.

I don't see this as a real worry. Once the use of RSA is legal worldwide, it
is fairly easy to just yank the RSAREF code and drop in functionally
equivalent, but legally unencumbered, code.  Or, everyone in the US/Canada
could just copy the compatable code from abroad.

Linn H. Stanton <stanton@acm.org>

The above opinions are exclusively my own. If anyone else wants them,
they can buy them from me. Easy terms can be arranged.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
 
mQCNAi3iC/MAAAEEAOj2cr49PeFwa78Swqf3nBZHspCfZ+IgX8nGU8rbm2oJ6VYj
u8o2M4c3Nv/tkoou24gDtM43/jSrRAalcX40pbGRqWJkkayJ52J8o4KupCrgsKLg
fBE5P4tcUo9KaeJIaOfItJ2qrfTOcFuN7GiyTQ1E2/FGPSHDoqz3kXhxoZcNAAUR
tCFMaW5uIEguIFN0YW50b24gPHN0YW50b25AYWNtLm9yZz4=
=H8OV
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Thread