Subject: New Encryption Algorithm

From: [email-masked] (Arthur Melnick)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 04:19:37 GMT

Ever since Craig Rowland posted his piece "New Encryption"
to sci.crypt there has been some discussion of our company,
Secured Communications Technologies, Inc, and on encryption
algorithm, NEA.
     I spoke to Craig at length on 4/21/93 and we covered a lot
of ground.  Some of the information in the posting requires some
clarification, and I would like to answer some of the questions
raised on sci.crypt.
     SCT is a small company based in Silver Spring Maryland.  Our
two main products at this time are a PC based secure
communications program called SECOM and a general purpose
encryption chip which uses the NEA algorithm developed for SECOM.
     SECOM provides an encrypted secure communication link
between two PC's connected over dial up telephone lines.  It
supports simultaneous bi-directional file transfer and keyboard
to screen "chat".  It has its own proprietary communications
protocol which is tightly integrated to the encryption.  All
though it is a packetized link, the data stream appears to be
continuous because the packet boundaries are hidden.
     When SECOM was initially developed, it was implemented to
use DES encryption.  A business decision was made to seek export
approval for the product because it was perceived that the
overseas market was a large one and provided a good marketing
opportunity.
     We soon found out that we would NEVER be granted general
export approval for anything using DES.  All though the reason
for this was never explicitly stated, it seems to have something
to do with secret government to government agreements which are
still in effect.
     In any event, the decision was made to develop a new and
different algorithm which would take the place of DES.  This was
the reason NEA (New Encryption Algorithm) was born.
     At this time NEA is being held as a trade secret.  The
preliminary work of patenting it has begun, and the plan is to
make it public once the patent process is complete.  All though
one can make certain legal arguments for keeping it an ongoing
secret, I think in the case of an encryption algorithm it is
necessary to let people "shoot at it" over an extended period of
time to prove its worth.
     In order to get export approval for SECOM/NEA, it was
necessary to go through NSA and to reveal to them the details of
the program and algorithm.  This was done only AFTER we had a
finished product to submit.
     Let me state unequivocally that there is NO "back door" to
the program or the algorithm.  Secured Communications
Technologies is a closely held private company and
NSA/FBI/CIA/NIST/WHATEVER has NO financial interest in any way
whatsoever with the company or any of the people involved.
     From a practical business standpoint, we are interested in
selling chips and software (hopefully in large quantities) and a
back door to the encryption, if found out, could destroy our
credibility and our business.
     With the encryption algorithm approved for export, we set
out to talk to a number of potential customers for encryption
products and systems.  We were able to identify several common
threads of functionality requirements.  This led to the design of
a chip with the encryption algorithm "cast in silicon" and
certain other capabilities added so that the chip could fulfill
the broad range of requirements that we identified.
     We are strongly opposed to the clipper/capstone chips.  In a
press release today, our president, Dr. Stephen Bryen stated:

          "It seems as if the government has an unlimited source
     of funds to use to push its new bugged chips on the American
     Public.  But do we not understand how the National Security
     Agency, which is not supposed to be involved in domestic
     spying, can fund the development of a commercial chip
     intended to accommodate U.S. government domestic spying
     activities."

     If they had asked me to put a "back door" in NEA I would
have told them to g__ f____ed.
     Can NSA break NEA?  Or for that matter can they break DES,
RSA, IDEA, Diffy-Hellman, PGP, RC2, RC4, or whatever?  I don't
know and probably never will.