Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the EUCD

[Peter Tomlinson]

But the algorithm may be expressed mathematically and published as such. Are
we certain that someone who then publishes a properly researched weakness in
the algorithm will not be prosecuted? I think I remember a discussion some
while back that suggested a possible restriction of academic freedom in that
area.

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Lewis" <oml@sysrx.uk.com>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the EUCD


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Graham Murray
> > Sent: 14 August 2002 06:57
> > To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > Subject: Re: Status of Cryptography Research in implementation of the
> > EUCD
>
> > How does Z prove that the information is  "*intended* to enable or
> > assist ..". It should be much easier for the researcher to show that
> > the intention of publication is intended to increase the security of
> > email and web users than for Z to show the intention to assist
> > breaking the copy protection. That assumes that Z could even
> > demonstrate that the researcher even knew that Z used X as part of
> > its copy protection.
>
> We are not considering a publication of abstract principles but of
specified
> weaknesses in named code. Do be able do this, the researcher has had his
> head well and truly 'under the bonnet' of that proprietary code and will
not
> easily be able to show otherwise. In the case of a copy protection
> algorithm, it will be unique to its owner.
>
> Owen
>
>
>