Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!

jfhrpp386.cactus.org

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: sameer: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"
• Previous message: Todd Glassey, Technologies Manager, Collage Communications: "hi there"
• In reply to: smbresearch.att.com: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"
• Next in thread: sameer: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"

> RC2 and RC4 are both trade secrets of RSA Data Security, Inc.  A
> bootleg version of RC4 was posted to the net last year; from everything
> I've heard, including some comments from Jim Bidzos, the president of
> RSADSI, it was the real thing.

If they are both trade secrets, then they aren't elligible for patent
protection -- sauce for the gander.

Does anyone on this list have the RC4 source or a pointer to it?
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   's: jfhrpp386.cactus.org

• Next message: sameer: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"
• Previous message: Todd Glassey, Technologies Manager, Collage Communications: "hi there"
• In reply to: smbresearch.att.com: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"
• Next in thread: sameer: "Re: Non-PK encryption not vulnerable via low key length?!"