[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Krypto mit Nachschluessel
- To: debate@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: Krypto mit Nachschluessel
- From: Horns@t-online.de (Axel H. Horns)
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:39:56 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Comments: Authenticated sender is <089000098030-0001@pop.btx.dtag.de>
- Organization: Private Site
- Priority: normal
- Sender: owner-debate@fitug.de
On 19 Jul 97 at 21:08, Kai Raven wrote:
> Was ist zum Beispiel eigentlich von FORTEZZA zu halten ?
In cryptography@c2.net gab es heute einen interessanten laengeren
Artikel:
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:07:40 -0500
To: cryptography@c2.net
From: Vin McLellan <vin@shore.net>
Subject: Re: Fortezza dying on the vine?
Rich Salz <rsalz@opengroup.org> queried the List:
>I'm seeing signs that DoD interest in Fortezza is waning. One
>software vendor no longer gets asked for it at sales meetings with
>the feds; a two-year Fortezza contract (like the NSA did with
>Netscape) was killed.
>
>Anyone else?
I see the same, but I wouldn't count Fortezza dead with a stake
through its heart quite yet.
The sponsors of the Defense Messaging System, which seems to be the
reference implementation of Fortezza, announced a month back that it's
evolution to Fortezza has been stalled, delayed; not terminated or
transformed. X3 within NSA is still committed to Fortezza -- or at
least to seeing that it's huge investment in Fortezza (and a warehouse
full of Fortezza PCMCIA cards) not go to waste.
[rest deleted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ich will hier nicht den ganzen Text re-posten. Falls jemand daran
interessiert ist, der cryptography@c2.net nicht mitliest, kann er
sich bei mir per e-mail melden.
Axel H. Horns