RE: California State Bill SB1386
From: Jonathan A. Zdziarski (jonathan@networkdweebs.com)
Date: 03/24/03
- Previous message: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- In reply to: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Next in thread: Rodrigo Barbosa: "Re: California State Bill SB1386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" <jonathan@networkdweebs.com> To: "'Steve Zenone'" <zenone@cats.ucsc.edu>, <incidents@securityfocus.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:01:56 -0500
> the fundamental question of what defines encryption, so far as
The question is not what defines encryption but what defines
unencryption...plain text that is...if enough information has been
transmitted that it could be reasonably converted into plain text, it should
be reported...the bill was probably written this specific way to avoid a
debate about what encryption is. It doesn't seem to matter what method you
use...the question is whether or not it can be reasonably converted to plain
text. If ROT-13 was used, that's reasonable... if a high-bit key was used,
is only reasonable if the key was also stolen or if there is reason to
believe enough information got out to launch a reasonable cryptanalysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerful Anti-Spam Management and More...
SurfControl E-mail Filter puts the brakes on spam,
viruses and malicious code. Safeguard your business
critical communications. Download a free 30-day trial:
http://www.surfcontrol.com/go/zsfihl1
- Previous message: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- In reply to: Steve Zenone: "RE: California State Bill SB1386"
- Next in thread: Rodrigo Barbosa: "Re: California State Bill SB1386"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|