Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!gatech!udel!rochester!PT!nl.cs.cmu.edu!mlm
From: mlm@nl.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.misc
Subject: Re: public key encryption and RSA patent status
Message-ID: <30@nl.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 09:14:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: nl.30
Posted: Mon Sep 28 09:14:53 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 04:43:54 EDT
References: <106@lll-risky.arpa> <622@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 26
Keywords: RSA patent
Xref: utgpu sci.crypt:536 comp.misc:1194
Summary: Other functions


I've already suggested another function:

	C=M^E mod (p*q*r)  which gives
	M=C^D mod (p*q*r), where D = invert (E, (p-1)(q-1)(r-1))

The RSA method generalizes to any number of secret primes because of
the properties of the  Euler totient function.

Maybe you could even convince the judge that "more primes are better"
and that your function is an "improvement" over the RSA patent.

Maybe you can hide the exponential as a loop of multiplications.
Remember, judges are not mathematicians -- they have to rely on expert
testimony to make decisions about math (I had a math sciences
professor once who made a fortune consulting as an expert witness in
redistricting trials, since he was an expert in the theory of voting).
If it sounds like it's different, the judge will probably believe it's
different.

[ Excuse me, I have to go mail a copy of this function to myself in an
   unopened letter. ]

Michael L. Mauldin (Fuzzy)		Department of Computer Science
ARPA: Michael.Mauldin@NL.CS.CMU.EDU	Carnegie-Mellon University
Phone: (412) 268-3065			Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890