🚀 go-pugleaf

I read a very interesting article in _Science News_ (7 Sep. 1991, pg.
148, by I. Peterson) called "Digital Security Signed, Sealed,
Delivered", regarding NIST's recently published proposal for a digital
signature standard.

Actually the article was fairly high-level, but they did have this
paragraph which I found wryly amusing:

   "But controversy surrounds NIST's choice of an unfamiliar
    mathematical algorithm as the federal standard for generating and
    verifying a digital signature.  ``If no one challenges what
    they've done, we'll be stuck with a weakened standard,'' says Jim
    Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security, Inc., in Redwood City,
    Calif., which produces equipment and software based on a rival,
    proprietary digital signature and encryption method known as RSA."

A little later on in the article we find out (one reason) why NIST
decided not to go with RSA:

   "... NIST officials rejected the RSA method, which is protected by
    a number of patents in the United States, and developed an
    alternative approach that, according to government lawyers, isn't
    covered by existing patents..."

I dunno, I found it ironic: you just can't win ;-)

                                                                paul
-----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul D. Smith                          | pds@lemming.webo.dg.com |
| Data General Corp.                     |                         |
| Network Systems Development Division   |   "Pretty Damn S..."    |
| Open Network Systems Development       |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------