From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:41:27 +0800
To: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [Long] A history of Netscape/MSIE problems
In-Reply-To: <84279182110737@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <199609142203.XAA00154@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Peter Guttmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> writes:
> >Hadn't heard that before, that the trade secret requirement was
> >imposed on RSADSI.  What was your source for that info, it is an
> >interesting assertion on the part of RSADSI, and I am intrigued.
>
> It's in AC II, p.319 (I was getting worried for a minute, I missed
> it the first time I looked and then couldn't figure out where I'd
> got the info from).

I can't see anything suggesting that the trade secret status of the
algorithm had anything to do with it's being granted special export
status.  All it says on 319 (the section on RC2) is:

: It is proprietary, and its details have not been published...

[of course since then someone did publish, anonymously]

: ...An agreement between the Software Publishers Association (SPA) and
: the US government gave RC2 and RC4 (see Section 17.1) special export
: status (see Section 25.13).

Sameer posted that someone at RSA once told him unofficially that the
trade secret status was required.

Schneier (courtesy of Ulf Moeller <um@c2.net>) seems to be saying that
it has nothing to do with it, in spite of RSADSIs claims:

: Schneier writes (2nd ed., p. 398): "This special export status has
: nothing to do with the secrecy of the algorithm, although RSA Data
: Security, Inc. has hinted for years that it does."

Adam