[3943] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: AUCRYPTO: Bidzos pro-wassenaar posturing.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Murray)
Mon Jan 11 11:00:28 1999
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:55:29 -0800
From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Cc: Enzo Michelangeli <em@who.net>, cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.02.9901101817290.28228-100000@ideath.parrhesia.com>; from Greg Broiles on Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 06:39:00PM -0800
On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 06:39:00PM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
>
> > So, my question is: is anybody aware of any (official or unofficial)
> > licensing condition from RSADSI discouraging the use of ciphersuites based
> > on Diffie-Hellman key exchange? Or may we hope in TLS-compliant browsers
> > before September of next year?
>
> I've talked to and worked for organizations which might've been subjected
> to conditions like you mention above and have never heard of one proposed
> by RSA nor accepted by a licensee.
Ditto here. While a number of RSADSI's licensees have complained
to me about the cost, no one's said that there's any restrictions
on the other crypto algorithims that they might use.
> The interesting question is what's going to happen - or not - to the
> BSAFEeay packgage, which implements the BSAFE API on top of SSLeay. It's
> certainly not patent-clean inside the US for another 21 months or so ..
My understanding is that BSAFEeay (as a wrapper for SSLeay) shouldn't
have any patent problems- to my knowledge it's not possible to patent
(or even claim trade secret?) an API. SSLeay with or without BSAFEeay
on top would have some patent and trade-secret problems with RSA and RC4.
--
Eric Murray N*Able Technologies www.nabletech.com
(email: ericm at the sites lne.com or nabletech.com) PGP keyid:E03F65E5
