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.
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.
participants (2)
-
Jeff Weinstein -
shamrock＠netcom.com