About "Rishad", someone privately wrote:
... naming an algorithm designed by three jewish guys after
an arabic word doesn't actually seem right to me...
Ha! I thought about that ... for a minute or so. But great
ideas like RSA must rise above irrelevant cultural boundaries.
But now that
Perhaps you wouldn't trust your WOT with you life, but at least you know
that there is some accountability in the signature chain. If you find that
Mallory has a key that says "Bob'" then you can follow the
signatures. When you find the person who admits that he signed
I don't know if this can interest someone on this list, but in the attached
announce, together with and open source implementation of MS CSP, you can
find a tool that can be used to substitute the _NSAKEY in the advapi32.dll.
ciao
Sergio Tabanelli
Project Manager Consultant
Fabbrica Servizi
From: Rodney Thayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Many companies trade mark their company name. I've heard the
term 'rsa' pre-dates the company, so I assume they didn't do
that. I don't see it on the web site.
Trademarking the company name and trademarking the algorithm name is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This was an issue last year. We've covered the same ground that was
covered elsewhere last year, including the same proposed names.
Having been awakend by a thunderstorm, I took a little time to check
on progress over in IEEE. The latest letter that I
I do not understand what is meant by "provably secure".
An unfortunate admission for a would-be cryptographer. For what it's
worth, this is a mark against your credibility and might mean that fewer
real crypto types will look at your work. (And no, I don't qualify as a
crypto type.)
What shall we call that-public-key-algorithm-that-will-not-be-
patent-protected in late September? we should not use a
trademarked or copyrighted term, in my opinion.
I think that "RSA" has gone the way of "Aspirin" and "Zipper".
If some lawyers try to make trouble about it, just put the
RSA Data Security does have some registered trademarks for encryption
software. In principle, they're not enforcable against an algorithm as
opposed to an implementation thereof, but considering how unpleasant RSA
the company has been in the past, I don't see any point in picking a
fight
--
James A. Donald:
I do not understand what is meant by "provably secure"]
At 09:57 AM 7/28/2000 -0400, Rich Salz wrote
An unfortunate admission for a would-be cryptographer.
It should have been obvious from the context that you deleted that I was
criticizing the use of the word to
Actually, no, you can apply "provably secure" to a protocol as well.
Granted, it is usually applied to cryptographic protocols, but that
is still a protocol, not a cryptosystem. Indeed, one could attempt
to apply "provably secre" techniques to protocols such as Kerberos,
or, in the case of the
Having listened to ANSI X9F.1 and IEEE P1363 working groups argue for years
about naming/renaming nearly to the point of absurdity,
I thought I would point out what RSA's lawyers said on the record about the
name:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/P1363/letters/SecurityDynamics.jpg
"Provably secure" is a word applicable to cyphers, not protocols. To use
it in reference to a protocol is nonsense gibberish.
A Google search on "provably secure protocol" comes up with, among others:
http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/honey/talks/cardis98/tsld001.htm
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:35:42 -0700
From: "James A. Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Provably secure" is a word applicable to cyphers, not protocols. To use
it in reference to a protocol is nonsense gibberish.
No, it is just more difficult to establish of protocols than of
primitives because
--
t 01:41 PM 7/27/2000 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'll also note that provably secure multicast is an ongoing project
over at Honeyman's CITI.
I do not understand what is meant by "provably secure". One can only prove
security against a particular threat. There will always
14 matches
Mail list logo
