Re: [dm-crypt] LRW has more data modification leakage than CBC?
You can look at the claims yourself, the application is online.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=rogaway.IN.&OS=IN/rogaway&RS=IN/
rogaway
or shorter,
http://tinyurl.com/3u3tx
I believe the claim is that this covers CMC and EME.
Thanks
jim
On Dec 29, 2004, at 8:47 AM, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> >From: "Shai Halevi" <shaih@alum.mit.edu>
> >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:54:32 -0500
>
> >> From: Adam J. Richter
> >> Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 10:43 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [dm-crypt] LRW has more data modification leakage
> than CBC?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> I've seen it stated in a few places EME is patented and CMC is not.
>
> >This is not true, where did you see that statement?
>
> >The Univ. of CA filed a patent on CMC (I don't know what is the
> current
> >status of that application), and asserted that EME is also covered by
> >the same patent. No patent was filed specifically for EME.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. I don't remember specificially,
> but I think I misinfered that from the remark in
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/stds-p1619%40listserv.ieee.org/
> msg00002.html
> "[...] EME can cure the flaws described, but is patented encumbered.
> I'm going to implement CMC as well as LRW (for testing purposes) in
> the next few weeks." I think I incorrectly inferred from that the
> CMC and LRW were not patented, but I now see that Fruhwirth's reason
> for putting it that way was probably because he had already made
> an EME implementation.
>
> Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding before it
> propagated too far.
>
> __ ______________
> Adam J. Richter \ /
> adam@yggdrasil.com | g g d r a s i l