From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8947310381c2a3f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: John Howard Subject: Re: Ada & Encryption / Compression Date: 1997/03/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 223962499 References: <5fikh7$ras$1@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au> <1997Mar6.123219.1@eisner> Organization: SkyNET Corporation Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article , David L Brown > writes: > > John Howard writes: > >> Forget about doing your own RSA encryption. > >> 1) RSA is patented. You'd have to wait for the patent to expire. > > > > Agreed, and this might be enough to stop you. RSA claims that you can > > only use their implementation. I presumed his circumstances would dictate forcing his implementation to be compatible with some standardized implementation offered by RSA. > In former years, RSA did not license the patent for your own > implementation other than with a very steep minimum fee (on > the order of 10 million dollars, according to rumor). That > is now different, and prices for your own implementation are > down to something reasonable (in my view). I incorrectly assumed everyone must license RSA technology even if they use their own prime numbers. From his address and generalized question I assumed he is a college student in Australia probably looking to do a senior design project. I presumed his college would not spend the money to acquire an RSA license even as an investment in a standardized implementation. So I suggested he start simple and possibly later add a DES variant (which presumably he would not be required to obtain a license to implement). [snip] > > Don't confuse the RSA algorithm with the contest that RSA is holding > > to crack a particular key. They are witholding this key, not because > > it has to do with the algorithm, but because it is part of a contest. > > Ah, that explains the original comment. I couldn't understand the basis. Nope. My comments were unrelated to any contest. I tried to convey that he had little chance of discovering the prime numbers used in a standard implementation offered by RSA. In my reasoning, as explained above, that left the "unlikely" event of him licensing and binding to an implementation authorized by RSA. You two have since pointed out that event is not so unlikely for the rest of us. But if this is to be the focus of a senior design project then I believe it is less likely for him because he'll simply be interfacing to a canned implementation. He'll probably need more to base a grade on. [snip] > Larry Kilgallen I think the discussion has been very useful. There is one issue left open that should be closed though: 1) Is a license required (working within the U.S.) to implement (for the U.S. market) the RSA public key algorithm with ones own prime numbers? A. Always yes. B. Always no. C. Sometimes. D. Don't know. 2) Is a license required (working outside the U.S.) to implement (for the U.S. market) the RSA public key algorithm with ones own prime numbers? A. Always yes. B. Always no. C. Sometimes. D. Don't know. I don't have useful answers to these. Luckily, I don't have to know. -- John Howard -- Team Ada Team OS/2 --