1996-02-04 - Re: RC2 technical questions

Header Data

From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
To: “baldwin” (Robert W. Baldwin) <baldwin@rsa.com>
Message Hash: e2d56bb2ebb645263477116dcab1a55b8fb75041ea5204cf32fb4ed2e3394a41
Message ID: <199602040753.CAA27660@crypto.com>
Reply To: <9601028232.AA823283956@snail.rsa.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-04 13:24:18 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 21:24:18 +0800

Raw message

From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 21:24:18 +0800
To: "baldwin" (Robert W. Baldwin) <baldwin@rsa.com>
Subject: Re: RC2 technical questions
In-Reply-To: <9601028232.AA823283956@snail.rsa.com>
Message-ID: <199602040753.CAA27660@crypto.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


baldwin@rsa.com writes:
>         In a shameless attempt to move the discussion of RC2 into
> a more technical arena, here are some interesting questions to
> explore about RC2.
>                 --Bob
> 
> Key expansion
> - How can you tell whether the permutation is based on
>   some sequence of digits from PI?

[long list of other good and interesting questions deleted]

In a previous message, baldwin@rsa.com also wrote:
>WARNING NOTICE
...
>in such source code under applicable law, including without
>limitation trade secret and copyright protection.  In
>particular, RSA Data Security's RC2 (TM) symmetric block
>cipher source code has been illegally misappropriated and
>published.  Please be advised that these acts, as well as
>any retransmission or use of this source code, is a
>violation of trade secret, copyright and various other state
>and federal laws.  Any person or entity that acquires,
>discloses or uses this information without authorization or
>license to do so from RSA Data Security, Inc. is in
>violation of such laws and subject to applicable criminal
>and civil penalties, which may include monetary and punitive
>damages, payment of RSA's attorneys fees and other equitable
>relief.


Bob,

I'm confused by these two messages, as a non-lawyer (but I realize you're
also a non-lawyer).  How can RSADSI, on the one hand, expect to be able
to assert trade secret status over RC2 (with a warning to "...any person
who acquires, discloses or uses this information...") while at the same time
encouraging the world to examine and better understand the (illegally-
published) RC2 code?  To my lay mind, I cannot see how one can reconcile
your two messages.

I'm not trying to be cute or play lawyer.  I'm honestly confused as
to just what RSADSI's position here is.

-matt





Thread