Re: LUC vs. RSA

Article View: sci.crypt

Article #2601

#2601

From: Amanda Walker
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:23

17 lines
1224 bytes

erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
> Anyone seen the article in the January 1993 Dr. Dobb's about LUC?  It's 
> supposed to be more secure than RSA, and it was developed in Australia (
> which means it isn't hamstrung by the silly ITAR)... 

Where it was developed is not relevant to ITAR.  If it performs encipherment, 
it's covered--doesn't matter if it's foreign, domestic, PD or commercial.  
This is the principle manner in which ITAR presents a trade barrier to U.S. 
vendors who are trying to compete in international markets.

The Department of Commerce likes exports.  The Department of State doesn't.
That's the U.S. regulatory system for you.

Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

Technical Details

Message-ID: <9212291723.AA25966@chaos.intercon.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!udel!intercon!usenet

References: <1992Dec29.002027.19298@unislc.uucp>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!udel!intercon!usenet
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: LUC vs. RSA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:23:25 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <9212291723.AA25966@chaos.intercon.com>
References: <1992Dec29.002027.19298@unislc.uucp>
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b29

Reply to Parent Message