What is a good suggestion for an algorithm in SSL that I can use that
doesn't have the patent problems here in the US? I am writing the
software for both client and server, so I can be quite flexible here.
Actually, I just got everything done today and had a successful
connection just a few minute
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 08:55:09AM -0800, Sean Walker wrote:
> What is a good suggestion for an algorithm in SSL that I can use that
> doesn't have the patent problems here in the US?
Configure the library with "no-rsa no-idea no-rc5". What is left
should not have patent problems in the USA. N
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 04:50:33PM -0500, James B. Huber wrote:
> I show the RSA patent 4,405,829 (expires Sept. 29th 2000) and
> the "idea" patent 5,214,703 (good for another 10 years) but don't
> find a patent on rc5
Try 5,835,600 or 5,724,428 (I haven't looked closely which one is actu
On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 10:16:16AM +0100, Nicolas Roumiantzeff wrote:
>> Configure the library with "no-rsa no-idea no-rc5". What is left
>> should not have patent problems in the USA.
> Can anyone confirm that RC4 is not a problem anymore?
It was a trade secret, but obviously is no longer se
Bodo Moeller writes:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 04:50:33PM -0500, James B. Huber wrote:
>
> > I show the RSA patent 4,405,829 (expires Sept. 29th 2000) and
> > the "idea" patent 5,214,703 (good for another 10 years) but don't
> > find a patent on rc5
>
> Try 5,835,600 or 5,724,428 (I haven
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, James B. Huber wrote:
> They are refusing to even speak to anyone regarding itCool.
> That means to me.it's mine to use as long as I make a formal
> in writing statement to the registered offices of their company
> they must either produce the original license and ter
> I'm not a lawyer either, however as a Manager of Software development
> I have always been told by the legal boys, you MUST enforce a
> copyright and/or patent in ALL cases or you can't enforce it in any.
> US law requires equal treatment to all.
Totally wrong.
___
ED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : mercredi 24 novembre 1999 23:54
Objet : Re: Good Algorithm
>On Wed, Nov 24, 1999 at 10:16:16AM +0100, Nicolas Roumiantzeff wrote:
>
>>> Configure the library with "no-rsa no-idea no-rc5". What is left
>>> should not have paten
> > Can anyone confirm that RC4 is not a problem anymore?
>
> It was a trade secret, but obviously is no longer secret; to my
> knowledge, RSA has never asserted to have patents on RC4.
You can call your implementation ARC4 -- Alleged RC4. If you claim that
your implementation is RC4 with any ce
Rich Salz writes:
> > I'm not a lawyer either, however as a Manager of Software development
> > I have always been told by the legal boys, you MUST enforce a
> > copyright and/or patent in ALL cases or you can't enforce it in any.
> > US law requires equal treatment to all.
>
> Totally wrong.
Groggy from lots of wine, rich food, wild women, and little sleep,
Vin McLellan wrote:
>Rivest invented RC2 in 1987. It was controlled and licensed as a
>trade secret by RSADSI for many years, but in 1992, Ron published an
>Internet RFC describing it, effectively putting it in th
James Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
>> I show the RSA patent 4,405,829 (expires Sept. 29th 2000) and
>>the "idea" patent 5,214,703 (good for another 10 years) but don't
>>find a patent on rc5
>>
>>Who owns rc5 and how is it restricted?
Bodo Moeller suggested:
> Try 5,835
Nicolas Roumiantzeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> queried the List:
/> Can anyone confirm that RC4 is not a problem anymore?
Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
>It was a trade secret, but obviously is no longer secret; to my
>knowledge, RSA has never asserted to have patents on RC
Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When SSL/TLS was brought to the IETF, there was some sort of special
> arrangement -- a concession to the huge SSL installed base (among consumers
> and commercial developers) which was accustomed to using RSA-based SSL with
> RC4 -- which acknowl
> As I recall, however, the TLSv.1 Internet-Draft mischeviously cited
> -- as its cannonical RC4 reference -- one of the several Apparently RC4
> (ARC-4) clones.
I believe they did this with the advice/suggestion/concerrence of Rivest.
___
At 12:37 AM 11/26/99 , Vin McLellan wrote:
>Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
>
> >It was a trade secret, but obviously is no longer secret; to my
> >knowledge, RSA has never asserted to have patents on RC4.
>
> This is correct. OTOH, RSAS has never given up their copyrigh
Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ekr> I don't believe this was the case. The original SSLv3 drafts
> Ekr> did not have DH/DSS/RC4 support. TLSv1 continued this.
> Ekr> The evidence that this was simply a glitch is that
> Ekr> DH_anon _was_ defined with RC4.
>
> I had in mind the
I wrote:
>> As I recall, however, the TLSv.1 Internet-Draft mischeviously cited
>> -- as its cannonical RC4 reference -- one of the several Apparently RC4
>> (ARC-4) clones.
Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> noted:
>I believe they did this with the advice/suggestion/concer
18 matches
Mail list logo
