At 12:26 PM -0700 3/30/99, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>I'm trying to sort out what the situation is for RSA exportability
>under the new regulations. Obviously, we can use DES, but
>are we still restricted to 512 bit RSA keys. What's the story?
The way I read it, if you are using RSA for authentication
Hi,
> The way I read it, if you are using RSA for authentication, there are no
> export restrictions (except perhaps the awful 5 nations). You do not need
> to get a license.
The regulations, as written, do seem to imply this. However, in
practice, it isn't that simple. For example, one imple
> I would propose "Biprime Cryptography" or "BPC" as the generic term for
> RSA. Biprime is a natural and appropriate English name for the product of
> two primes.
There are other "biprimes" too, isn't it? Like that girl who they talked
so much about, "her" (heard some stuff about weather it bein
Bluefish [@ home] writes:
> > I would propose "Biprime Cryptography" or "BPC" as the generic term for
> > RSA. Biprime is a natural and appropriate English name for the product of
> > two primes.
>
> There are other "biprimes" too,
BiPrime Factoring. BPF (no, not Berkeley Packet Filter!)
> The way I read it, if you are using RSA for authentication, there are no
> export restrictions (except perhaps the awful 5 nations). You do not need
> to get a license.
I concur. The awful 5 nations aren't even embargoed, if your export
is "publicly available", which exempts you from the EAR
