[43469] in Cypherpunks
Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jiri Baum)
Thu Nov 16 00:55:53 1995
From: Jiri Baum <jirib@sweeney.cs.monash.edu.au>
To: rsalz@osf.org (Rich Salz)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:46:58 +1100 (EST)
Cc: rsalz@osf.org, ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, cypherpunks@toad.com,
owner-cypherpunks@toad.com, s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
In-Reply-To: <9511142220.AA13813@sulphur.osf.org> from "Rich Salz" at Nov 14, 95 05:20:13 pm
Reply-To: jirib@cs.monash.edu.au
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
and rsalz@osf.org, ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu
and cypherpunks@toad.com, owner-cypherpunks@toad.com,
and s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
...
> >are specifically designed for the insertion of cryptographic materials,
> >or is it the fact that they could be used to support cryptographic
...
> Basically, generic buffer-manipulation is okay. "Keyed compression"
> where you explicitly passed something called a key to a DLL routine
> would be looked on suspiciously.
...
Why would you call it a key?
How about compression "options"? The compression algorithm could
have a "speed" mode and a "size" mode. It could also have options
for file type etc...
Recipient id could be passed along to check which compression
method the recipient knows.
...
> An abstract set of open/modify/close
> routines (where open returned a pointer to opaque state, say a session
> key :) would be fine.
...
So what's the difference... apart from what it's called?
Jiri
- --
If you want an answer, please mail to <jirib@cs.monash.edu.au>.
On sweeney, I may delete without reading!
PGP 463A14D5 (but it's at home so it'll take a day or two)
PGP EF0607F9 (but it's at uni so don't rely on it too much)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMKrQSyxV6mvvBgf5AQFUqAP/R3IGOey/1NbyyzTLYgRsrcbQtM1HHc73
PzXijxLJHvCjUTRaHS1feBRJv+dbwAMlH8yO+Q4DKuy5YCdv5f3kJz0Bsyejr8/C
R3JOPSH4nePOGR8rfTK1AUMPQIGn50NXIaNT0OLdVSGU3444W4xruXiqkLlzduBn
2UNLX7DNXls=
=wGpa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
