NODE ac71536dRe: Lotus Notes
shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:52:09 +0800
At 11:09 1/30/96, Charlie_Kaufman/Iris.IRIS@iris.com wrote:
>p.s. re: the fact that it's 64 bits rather than 128. That was the limit on key
>size of the crypto software we licensed from a third party. That crypto
>software also limited us to 760 bit RSA keys.
I find this very interesting. RSA prohibits its licencees from using RSA
software with truly secure keylenghts. What may have incenitvised them to
take this bizzare position?
<Can't wait until these damm patents expire>
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
NODE b76e6decRe: Lotus Notes
Jeff Weinstein <jsw@netscape.com>Wed, 31 Jan 1996 23:31:20 +0800
Lucky Green wrote:
>
> At 11:09 1/30/96, Charlie_Kaufman/Iris.IRIS@iris.com wrote:
>
> >p.s. re: the fact that it's 64 bits rather than 128. That was the limit on key
> >size of the crypto software we licensed from a third party. That crypto
> >software also limited us to 760 bit RSA keys.
>
> I find this very interesting. RSA prohibits its licencees from using RSA
> software with truly secure keylenghts. What may have incenitvised them to
> take this bizzare position?
I don't want to defend RSA, their code, or their licensing practices,
but I don't know of any such restrictions in BSAFE.
--Jeff
--
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.