> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:]
> Subject: Re: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
>
> Bill Simpson said:
> >
> > - We just learned a few weeks ago that every copy of Windows has a
> secret
> > NSA key. We don&#
Bill Simpson said:
>
> - We just learned a few weeks ago that every copy of Windows has a secret
> NSA key. We don't know why. Remember the Lotus Notes secret NSA key
> fiasco that got us in trouble with the Swedish government? How can we
> ever compete, when nobody trusts our software?
Jay Holovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would like to see some discussion of what are the actual possible CPU
> subversions. All the obvious subversions would seem to require a
> cooperating OS...
Pure speculation, but what if copying a certain 256-bit string caused the
program counter to pick up
At 10:26 PM 9/17/1999 +0100, Antonomasia wrote:
>From: Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> after he began talking about some very curious, very complex, very
>> undocumented instruction he discovered in late-model CPU's. Instructions
>> that will put the processor into a mode that makes OS protec
Zombie Cow wrote:
> Or start producing Open Sourced CPUs and motherboards.
>
> IBM has an Open Source PPC motherboard, and here's an
> article referring to an Open Source CPU by Sun:
>
> (Well, they're not really "Open Source", but still, open enough..)
> (Search www.techweb.com for the source U
From: Lucky Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> after he began talking about some very curious, very complex, very
> undocumented instruction he discovered in late-model CPU's. Instructions
> that will put the processor into a mode that makes OS protections
> irrelevant.
This is scary. It could be time
Lucky wrote:
> What I found most interesting about today's announcement was not that it
> was
> largely content-free with respect to crypto export regulations and the
> fifth
> or sixth such content-free "crypto deregulation" announcement that I can
> remember causing the exact same pred
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Lucky, actually not everyone missed it. It's our top story on Wired News
> this morning.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21810.html
> Decoding the Crypto Policy Change
> 3:00 a.m. Why did the White House suddenly change its mind on
> regulati
You can find all that and more already archived at www.epic.org and
www.cdt.org.
-Declan
At 08:54 9/17/1999 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: John Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
>Sender: [EMAIL PR
--- begin forwarded text
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:08:10 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: John Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You can now find a fuller set of
Lucky, actually not everyone missed it. It's our top story on Wired News
this morning.
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21810.html
Decoding the Crypto Policy Change
3:00 a.m. Why did the White House suddenly change its mind on
regulating encryption? It couldn't be because the N
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh wr
> ites:
> > What I found most interesting was what Attorney General Reno said about the
> > government's cryptanalysis abilities. When asked if she can break strong,
> > >64 bit equivalent crypto, she said, "We ha
Declan wrote:
[Various quality information elided]
> What I found most interesting was what Attorney General Reno said
> about the
> government's cryptanalysis abilities. When asked if she can break strong,
> >64 bit equivalent crypto, she said, "We have carefully looked at this and
> think it's p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Declan McCullagh wr
ites:
> What I found most interesting was what Attorney General Reno said about the
> government's cryptanalysis abilities. When asked if she can break strong,
> >64 bit equivalent crypto, she said, "We have carefully looked at this and
> think i
John,
I buttonholed William Reinsch, Commerce Dept undersecretary, outside the
White House briefing room a few minutes ago. I happened to ask him the same
question you bring up here: What's up with that one-time technical review?
Things were crowded and noisy, but here's what I learned. (The BXA
When we got an export license for Stronghold earlier this year (don't ask),
the process consisted of filling out an application form listing the types
of encryption and ciphers supported, key sizes supported, etc., then
answering a few follow-up questions of that sort from some NSA staffer, and
th
John Gilmore wrote:
>
> There's a vague and undefined term in the press leaks so far:
>
> One-Time Technical Review
>
> What does this mean? It appeared in some early crypto liberalization
> bills floated in Congressional committees.
Based on my previous experience with the export pro
Dave Farber:
> As I said , the devil is in the details.
Let me agree. Remember when the Administration said it was giving
industry what it wanted -- transferring crypto exports to the Commerce
Dept? And when later "industry" worked out a deal so they could "easily"
export key-recovery products,
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IP: more re Encryption Technology Limits Eased
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "Dave Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>I don't want to brag, but it was *first* reported by the San Jose Mercury
&
19 matches
Mail list logo
