ANNOUNCE: PureTLS version 0.9b2
Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Claymore Systems, Inc.
http://www.rtfm.com/puretls
DESCRIPTION
PureTLS is a free Java-only implementation of the SSLv3 and TLSv1
(RFC2246) protocols. PureTLS was developed by Eric Rescorla for
Claymore Systems, Inc, but is being distributed
[The SSSCA would require all devices capable of
carrying media content to have hardware locks
to prevent copyright violations. Essentially,
it turns all computers as closed as set-top
boxes - and about as useful.
See http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=sssca
for background -pt ]
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> Dear Valued Customer,
[...]
>
> The PGP technology and source code will remain under the control and
> ownership of Network Associates. Other products that utilize this
> encryption technology will remain a part of Network AssociatesÂ’
> current produ
--- begin forwarded text
Status: U
Date: 28 Feb 2002 01:33:48 -
Automatic-Legal-Notices: See http://cr.yp.to/mailcopyright.html.;
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What's going on with factorization
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Id: Friends of Rohi
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
>Philip,
>If we can at all fit it into the schedule, IFCA will attempt to offer a
>colloquium on this topic at FC. Based on the countless calls inquiring about
>this issue that I received just in the last few days, the customers of
>financial cryptography
See also
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24262.html
--- CUT
Senator brutalizes Intel rep for resisting CPRM
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 01/03/2002 at 14:41 GMT
Entertainment industry lapdog Senator Fritz Holl
> http://www.treas.gov/fincen/po1044.htm
For what it is worth, the apparent consensus view amongst U.S.
financial institutions is that if "T+1" clearence and "straight
through processing" (STP) are to become operational realities,
then authentication and authorization credentials must be
I haven't checked all of the numbers, but I think Frog3's analysis is
largely correct. However, the two O(1)'s below should be replaced with
o(1)'s.
Very informally, think of O(1) as some constant, and o(1) as converging to
0. One possibly confusing thing about Berstein's paper is that in the
sen
--- begin forwarded text
Status: U
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:43:36 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Recruiting Agents
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dell's admission of vetting customer use of its
products on behalf of domestic and national security,
raises
--- begin forwarded text
Status: U
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:28:17 -0800
From: "PGP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "PGP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Important Information regarding PGP Desktop/Wireless Encryption
Products
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A question: assuming, you have a class of random number generators with
lots of internal state. (Lots: like >>10^6 bits). Let's say the evolution
through state space of that generator is provably reversible (or nearly
reversible), and that the Hamiltonian of the system is stochastic (system
evolu
11 matches
Mail list logo
