Guy Macon wrote on Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:36:09 +0000:
>
> Jan Dubiec wrote:
[.....]
>>I don't think also that RC4 is a trade secret.
>
> Nonetheless, RC4 is a trade secret, whether you think so or not.
If RC4 isn't a secret, it isn't also a trade secret. IMO it is
logical for an average engineer. Although I agree that lawyers (and
marketroids) use different kind of logic. ;-)
[.....]
>>One of the free RC4 implementations
>
> In other words, something that we are pretty sure is RC4,
> but we are not completely sure ss RC4, puplished by someone
> who may or may not have correctly reverse-engineered RC4.
Free RC4 implementations have been widely used for 10 years. IMO it
is long enough to prove that they actually implement RC4.
[.....]
>>I haven't seen this link for a long time but AFAIR Rivest
>>had invented RC4 and after that he started to work for RSA.
>
> Are you implying that RSA does not own RC4?
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> An interesting aspect of this is that we don't *really* know
>> whether what we call "RC4" is the same as the RC4 owned by RSA.
>> We do know that the two can encrypt and decrypt each other's
>> output, and that this has been tested on millions of files.
>> For this reason, some people call the RC4 that we use
>> "ARCFOUR" instead of "RC4."
>
>I don't think also that RC4 is a trade secret.
Nonetheless, RC4 is a trade secret, whether you think so or not.
>One of the free RC4 implementations
In other words, something that we are pretty sure is RC4,
but we are not completely sure ss RC4, puplished by someone
who may or may not have correctly reverse-engineered RC4.
>contains following comment:
Comments by pepole who *don't* own RC4 have no validity.
The official comment by the people who *do* own RC4 is:
"RSA Security does not hold any patents nor does it have any
pending applications on the RC4 algorithm. However, RSA
Security does not represent or warrant that implementations
of the algorithm will not infringe the intellectual property
rights of any third party. Proprietary implementations of the
RC4 encryption algorithm are available under license from RSA
Security Inc. For licensing information, contact: RSA Security
Inc. 2955 Campus Drive, Suite 400, San Mateo, CA 94403-2507,
USA, or http://www.rsasecurity.com."
>I haven't seen this link for a long time but AFAIR Rivest
>had invented RC4 and after that he started to work for RSA.
> An interesting aspect of this is that we don't *really* know
> whether what we call "RC4" is the same as the RC4 owned by RSA.
> We do know that the two can encrypt and decrypt each other's
> output, and that this has been tested on millions of files.
> For this reason, some people call the RC4 that we use
> "ARCFOUR" instead of "RC4."
AFAIK the algorithm is sometimes called "ARCFOUR" because "RC4" is
registered trade mark. At least in the USA.
I don't think also that RC4 is a trade secret. One of the free RC4
implementations contains following comment:
* Implemented from the description in _Applied Cryptography_, 2nd ed.
*
* ** Distribution ** of this software is unlimited and unrestricted.
*
* ** Use ** of this software is almost certainly legal; however, refer
* to <http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/faq.html>.
I haven't seen this link for a long time but AFAIR Rivest had invented
RC4 and after that he started to work for RSA.
Regards,
/J.D.
--
Jan Dubiec We're all living in Amerika
jdx#slackware.pl Coca Cola
+48 506 790442 Sometimes war
Amerika by Rammstein
Close, but incorrect. RC4 is and always has been owned by RSA
Data Security, Inc. Jim Bidzos, President of RSA, decided long
ago to not patent RC4 but to instead rely upon trade secret
protection - which means that RSA has never revealed the RC4
algorithm to the public, a requirement for obtaining a patent.
Revealing, publishing, or using a trade secret is not illegal.
Trade secrets are protected by contracts instead of laws.
If you have signed a contract with RSA, you are bound by that
contract and could be sued if you violate it.
If, on the other hand, you don't have a contract with RSA and
are using a copy that has been reverse-engineered, you are free
and clear to use it.
An interesting aspect of this is that we don't *really* know
whether what we call "RC4" is the same as the RC4 owned by RSA.
We do know that the two can encrypt and decrypt each other's
output, and that this has been tested on millions of files.
For this reason, some people call the RC4 that we use
"ARCFOUR" instead of "RC4."
Bottom line: go ahead and use it.
--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/
Reply by Wim Ton●December 12, 20042004-12-12
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:10rmi48g7qend4c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Wim Ton wrote:
>
> >If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you get
away
> >with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit
> >processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use a
Interesting article! Is RC4 freely available today or covered by patents?
Some time ago it was a Mirocsoft prorietary algorithm.
Wim
Reply by Guy Macon●December 11, 20042004-12-11
Wim Ton wrote:
>If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you get away
>with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit
>processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use a crypto-coprocessor
>(which are rare and expensive) or a DSP
> On the software side, the device needs to run either HTTPd with SSL or a
> custom daemon which includes encryption (probably blowfish). It will also
SNIP
If you want to run SSL you will need a 32 bit processor (maybe you get away
with 16 bits with clever coding and fast enough clock). For an 8 bit
processor AES is a better choice than Blowfish. Or use a crypto-coprocessor
(which are rare and expensive) or a DSP
Wim
Reply by Bryan Hackney●December 9, 20042004-12-09
dbernat32 wrote:
> I need some input on what the best microcontroller (relatively cheap) and OS
> to use for a project I will be starting soon.
>
> The project requires a Ethernet connection, so an on-board MAC is desirable.
> A real time clock and several timers will be required.
> The MCU will need to interface with a RC5 encoder for IR control of devices
> (and possible RF communication as well).
>
> On the software side, the device needs to run either HTTPd with SSL or a
> custom daemon which includes encryption (probably blowfish). It will also
[...]
Maybe check out Axis ETRAX MCM4+16, or the 100LX. http://developer.axis.com/.
I use these. Let me know if you want more info from my perspective.
Reply by Richard H.●December 9, 20042004-12-09
dbernat32 wrote:
> I need some input on what the best microcontroller
> (relatively cheap) and OS to use for a project I
> will be starting soon.
> I need some input on what the best microcontroller (relatively cheap) and OS
> to use for a project I will be starting soon.
>
> The project requires a Ethernet connection, so an on-board MAC is desirable.
> A real time clock and several timers will be required.
> The MCU will need to interface with a RC5 encoder for IR control of devices
> (and possible RF communication as well).
>
Zilog eZ80f91 sounds about right. They are a bit expensive in small
quantities, but otherwise seem to have everything else you want.
Development system with C, OS and lots of examples $99 I think.
Paul Burke