Re: A89: U.S. Encryption Laws

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: U.S. Encryption Laws
From: "Mathew Ryden" <dryden19-2@idt.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:55:43 -0600
References: <3846F662.FBFFFBBC@drrobin.yi.org> <19991202234602.A4465@m101.ryd.student.liu.se> <3846F765.2D944EB8@drrobin.yi.org> <19991203003031.B4465@m101.ryd.student.liu.se> <00f701bf3d1f$66cc2a80$0100a8c0@dew> <v04220809b46cb696dc68@[24.8.72.223]> <38470F83.D8029ACC@drrobin.yi.org>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org


> nope, i've done a lot of ametuer crypto, and here's the info:
> the maximum legal cryptography level with a 2048bit key.
> the maximum legal exportable crypto is 56bit, which is a joke to crack.
>
> The ti89, therefore, cannot use 512bit encryption or it would be illegal
> to export it!
> --robin

Not quite. If it WERE like this, the beloved 64-bit RSA encryption currently
being attacked (www.distributed.net) couldn't be done on a world wide scale.
I believe that the text that it decrypts to needs to be known, or something
to that nature, and THEN they can export anything they feel is fit.

Of course, I'm often wrong, ad could easily be wrong, and most definetly,
IANAL.

Mathew

Follow-Ups:

A89: [OT] <-- way about email

From: "Joe" <joeknoll@myself.com>

References:

A89: rom call return values

From: Robin Kirkman <misty@drrobin.yi.org>

Re: A89: rom call return values

From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>

Re: A89: rom call return values

From: Robin Kirkman <misty@drrobin.yi.org>

Re: A89: rom call return values

From: Johan <johei804@student.liu.se>

A89: U.S. Encryption Laws

From: "Daniel Wood" <thedew@usit.net>

Re:A89: U.S. Encryption Laws

From: Rosyna <rosyna@earthlink.net>

Re: A89: U.S. Encryption Laws

From: Robin Kirkman <misty@drrobin.yi.org>