cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1998-09-21 - Re: Questions for Magaziner?

Header Data

From: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
Message Hash: db2a8c729b86a028d9a7dadd82aebfc7d739aa56666a89349d564c5f3911968e
Message ID: <kj4sv5u9u3.fsf@speedy.rtfm.com>
Reply To: <v03130304b227b7401a3a@[24.128.118.53]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-21 11:41:03 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:41:03 +0800

Raw message

From: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:41:03 +0800
To: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Questions for Magaziner?
In-Reply-To: <v03130304b227b7401a3a@[24.128.118.53]>
Message-ID: <kj4sv5u9u3.fsf@speedy.rtfm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com> writes:

> > Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> >
> > One question I'd like asked is whether the US Gov will approve 56-bit RC-4
> > for export on the same terms as 56-bit DES. That would allow export
> > versions of web browsers to be upgraded painlessly, making international
> > e-commerce 64 thousand times more secure than existing 40-bit browsers.
> > (56-bit DES browsers would require every merchant to upgrade their SSL
> > servers and introduce a lot of unneeded complexity.)
> 
> Actually, it wouldn't be any easier to deploy 56-bit RC4 than DES.  Either
> would require roughly the same changes to both clients and servers.
And from a protocol perspective, it would be worse, at least for
SSL, since SSL doesn't have a 56 bit RC4 mode at all.

-Ekr
-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   ekr@rtfm.com]

Thread