Netscpae & Fortezza (Or, say it Ain't so, Jeff?)

This came across the SSL mailing list.  Anyone know Taher's position
on key-escrow?


| From ssl-talk-request@netscape.com  Thu Sep 28 01:54:10 1995
| Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:34:09 -0700
| Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 09:30:03 -0700
| Message-Id: <199509261630.JAA06021@neon.netscape.com>
| X-Sender: elgamal@pop.mcom.com
| X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
| Mime-Version: 1.0
| Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
| To: John Droge <jdroge@ix.netcom.com>, ssl-talk@netscape.com
| From: elgamal@netscape.com (Taher ElGamal)
| Subject: Re: Crypto
| Resent-Message-ID: <"BFRph1.0.yW1.jg2Qm"@neon>
| Resent-From: ssl-talk@netscape.com
| X-Mailing-List: <ssl-talk@netscape.com> archive/latest/987
| X-Loop: ssl-talk@netscape.com
| Precedence: list
| Resent-Sender: ssl-talk-request@netscape.com
| 
| Can I get some detailed info about your company and products-- We are
| thinking about this.
| 
| taher
| 
| At 11:34 PM 9/25/95 -0700, John Droge wrote:
| >Dear Sirs:
| >
| >My company developed and currently produces the Fortezza Crypto 
| >Card for the Government.  What plans to you have to support this 
| >standard?
| >
| >Sincerely,
| >John Droge
| >Vice President
| >Program Development
| >Mykotronx, Inc.
| >357 Van Ness Way, Ste. 200
| >Torrance, CA  90501
| >(310) 533-8100
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| Taher Elgamal                   elgamal@netscape.com
| Chief Scientist
| Netscape Comm Corp., 501 E Middlefield Road, Mountain View Ca 94043.
| (415) 528 2898 (Tel),          (415) 528 4122 (Fax)
|           
|

Is this the return of "Mosaic Communications" :-)

>This came across the SSL mailing list.  Anyone know Taher's position
>on key-escrow?

Oh, come on.  One does not have to "support key escrow" to be interested
in Fortezza.  The Fortezza interface does not have any "escrow-specific"
features; it's actually a pretty good crypto API (for which several vendors
plan to produce compliant, non-escrowed PCMCIA cards).  The Fortezza market
(in the government) is also pretty big, by the way, so one can hardly
blame any vendor for being interested in in.

Disclaimer: I'm also an evil "Fortezza sympathizer".  I built a (Tessera,
actually) version of CFS last year.  I think it's a good interface,
and I'd encourage people to  build strong, non-escrowed crypto modules
(in hardware and in software) that conform to it...

-matt

In article <199509281309.JAA12017@bwh.harvard.edu>, adam@bwh.harvard.edu (Adam Shostack) writes:
> This came across the SSL mailing list.  Anyone know Taher's position
> on key-escrow?

  Just because we may do fortezza support for customers who want it
does not mean that we will force key escrow on the rest of the world.
I for one am against any kind of GAK on moral grounds.  I also think
that trying to implement mandatory GAK in a software only system
would be a nightmare.

	--Jeff

-- 
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.