[165] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re[2]: PCS Encryption?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Zmudzinski)
Wed Feb 5 13:33:42 1997
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 12:27:36 EST
From: "Tom Zmudzinski" <zmudzint@ncr.disa.mil>
To: cryptography@c2.net
In the final lustrum of the Twentieth Century (2/4/97 4:05 PM),
slightly before the world's computer calendars went mad,
"Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com> posted:
>Adam Shostack asked:
>
>> I was under the impression that Fortezza was ok for classified
>>traffic. Did I miss the changeover, was it unannounced, or was I
>>simply misremembering?
>>
>
>Last year Emmett Paige, the chief information officer for DOD, was quoted
>as saying that Fortezza would be approved for information classified up to
>SECRET and that NSA would expedite a more secure replacement. (There were
>grumblings that Fortezza might be vulnerable in 20 years.) I believe
>Fortezza Plus is that replacement. As I understand, it Fortezza Plus uses
>"Type 1" encryption that is approved for classified info. I am not sure if
>Fortezza Plus is available yet nor if vanilla Fortezza was actually
>approved or used for classified info.
>
>Arnold Reinhold
A tad more light on the topic: Yes, if one follows NSA/X1's spiffy
doctrine on FORTEZZA For Classified (FFC), one can use an otherwise
vanilla (Type 2 algorithms ONLY) FORTEZZA card to protect information
up to Secret. Such cards have different crypto variables than their
SBU twins. This use of FORTEZZA (and the enabling FFC doctrine) was
approved for a period of three years because FORTEZZA PLUS (which will
carry BOTH Type 1 and Type 2 algorithms) is not currently available.
If you need details, try 1-800-GO-MISSI. vr/tez
