RE: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard

[Alex Alten <Andrade@ix.netcom.com>]

At 09:06 AM 3/27/98 -0800, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>At 09:04 PM 3/26/98 -0800, Peter Ford wrote:
>
>
>Another strong argument for AH was export.  The assumption is that AH will
>always be exportable.  Getting an export license for an ESP implementation
>that only does NULL-ESP might be a little hard.
>

Yes, I imagine it will be quite hard without some sort of key escrow.
This in my opinion will seriously hobble IPSEC's deployment.  I'm not
kidding about this.  The US Commerce department will not back down on this.
The reason is because they have already approved some unrestricted key 
length export licenses for world wide shipment (except the forbidden 5).  
Some, like TIS's RecoverKey(tm), use 3rd party key escrow.  This puts them 
in a very strong position for the foreseeable future.

- Alex

--
Alex Alten
Andrade@Netcom.Com
P.O. Box 11406
Pleasanton, CA  94588  USA
(510) 417-0159

---

References:

• RE: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
• From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
• Next by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
• Prev by thread: RE: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
• Next by thread: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread