RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
At 10:55 PM 10/12/00 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: > >It's often hard to tell whether a physical object violates >a given patent or not - bitspace is often pretty subtle stuff, >especially if it's manufacturing methods rather than end results >that are the subject of the patent. > >But increasingly, the interesting patents are (gak) software, >(gak gak) algorithms, and (gak phfft) business methods, >all of which are basically bits that are potentially easy to make untraceable. >Sure, if you actually have to ship somebody the infringing code >on a CDROM or DVD, then there's some traceability, >but that's decreasingly interesting as a distribution method. Before anyone else starts, don't take my hypothesis that patents will survive in a crypto-abundant world as endorsement for the USP&TO lunacy we've all seen. You can limit the context to physical-object or manufacturing patents. It is has been pretty well argued that bits will be very hard to regulate in any sense of that word; and also that USPTO has been doing too much PCP during work hours.
RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
At 11:36 PM 10/12/00 -0400, David Honig wrote: >At 12:36 PM 10/12/00 -0400, Tim May wrote: >>In a crypto anarchic >>society, patents will mostly be moot.) > >Really? If you have a factory, or open a virtual storefront, >you have a public (meat, seizable) presence. >Patents are enforced by guns against locatable >assets which have exploited the patents. > >I realize that *copyrighted* bits will be hard to track, but not an address >that ships patent-infringing (or for that matter, trademark-infringing) goods. >To paraphrase, Meat is vulnerable, bits are safe. But (with the exception of >software patents) patents are embodied in things, and things are traceable. It's often hard to tell whether a physical object violates a given patent or not - bitspace is often pretty subtle stuff, especially if it's manufacturing methods rather than end results that are the subject of the patent. But increasingly, the interesting patents are (gak) software, (gak gak) algorithms, and (gak phfft) business methods, all of which are basically bits that are potentially easy to make untraceable. Sure, if you actually have to ship somebody the infringing code on a CDROM or DVD, then there's some traceability, but that's decreasingly interesting as a distribution method. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
At 12:36 PM 10/12/00 -0400, Tim May wrote: >In a crypto anarchic >society, patents will mostly be moot.) Really? If you have a factory, or open a virtual storefront, you have a public (meat, seizable) presence. Patents are enforced by guns against locatable assets which have exploited the patents. I realize that *copyrighted* bits will be hard to track, but not an address that ships patent-infringing (or for that matter, trademark-infringing) goods. To paraphrase, Meat is vulnerable, bits are safe. But (with the exception of software patents) patents are embodied in things, and things are traceable.
Re: CDR: RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
>On Wednesday, October 11, Bo Elkjaer Wrote: >>Yesterday oct. 10 NSA was granted another patent for a >cryptographic device >invented by William Friedman. The >application for the >patent was filed oct. 23 1936 >-- 64 years >ago. > On 11 Oct 2000, raze wrote: >My question is this; why would they patent something that is 64 year old technology? >This is like the Enigma machine no?! > Um, actually, no. The attacks we know on Rotor machines assume that the rotors rotate at predictable, constant intervals. This was true of the Engigma, but not true of some later Rotor machines. The papertape variation of this system, with every cipher wheel rotating by some varying amount between each letter, won't fall to any rotor attacks we know of until the papertapes have repeated at least twice each. Even then, it takes some fancy mathematics to figure out *how* to apply the rotor cryptanalysis to the system. After reading this newer patent, I think it's actually *LESS* secure than the system it purports to replace. I could be wrong here -- I'd like to actually see the diagrams and drawings and my browser doesn't support 'em -- but it looks like the rotations are constant per keystroke with this system, which would make it fall to rotor cryptanalysis. The crucial question, the one I can't make out without looking at the diagrams, is whether the mapping of rotations to rotors is different each time. Here's what I bet: department of the army didn't like the paper tape idea -- too fragile, too vulnerable to wet, required delicate machinery to read that had to be maintained -- and they wanted something a lot more rugged. So he designed something that ditched the paper tape idea for them. It wasn't as secure, but it was still better than the Hebern-style machines that were likely under consideration as an alternative. Bear
Re: CDR: RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
On 11 Oct 2000, raze wrote: > My question is this; why would they patent something that is 64 year old technology? > This is like the Enigma machine no?! Note that the patent-application was filed in 1936. Obviously they were interested in keeping any info relating to the invention confidential. But theres no need for that anymore, given that the technology in the patent is completely obsolete by now. Yours Bo Elkjaer, Denmark > > On Wednesday, October 11, Bo Elkjaer Wrote: > >Yesterday oct. 10 NSA was granted another patent for a >cryptographic device >invented by William Friedman. The >application for the >patent was filed oct. 23 1936 >-- 64 years >ago. > >>Bevar naturen: Sylt et egern.<< >>URL: http://www.datashopper.dk/~boo/index.html<< >>ECHELON URL:<< >>http://www1.ekstrabladet.dk/netdetect/echelon.iasp<<
RE: New OLD cryptograph patent for NSA
My question is this; why would they patent something that is 64 year old technology? This is like the Enigma machine no?! On Wednesday, October 11, Bo Elkjaer Wrote: >Yesterday oct. 10 NSA was granted another patent for a >cryptographic device invented >by William Friedman. The >application for the >patent was filed oct. 23 1936 -- 64 >years >ago.
