On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 02:13:04PM +0100, ianG wrote: > > Or is this impossible to reconcile? If Certicom is patenting backdoors, > the only plausible way I can think of this is that it intends to wield > backdoors. Which means spying and hacking. Certicom is now engaged in > the business of spying on ... customers? Foreign governments? > Note that the majority of the claims (and the entirety of the granted claims in the US and JP so far; they got all parts granted in Europe) is on escrow avoidance; i.e. on using the procedure for alternative points from the SP800-90 appendix. I.e. if a vendor gets sufficiently worried about the potential backdoor but doesn't want to do a completely new implementation he will opt for other points ---> royalties. > In contrast, I would have said that Certicom's responsibility as a > participant in Internet security is to declare and damn an exploit, not > bury it in a submarine patent. > I had hoped so.
Tanja _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
