HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Alex.Strasheim@launchpad.unc.edu (Alex Strasheim)
Subject: Re: Help cracking a WordPerfect file...
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:00:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.192225.919@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> butzerd@blanc.eng.ohio-state.edu (Dane C. Butzer) writes:
>I have a friend who forgot his password to a WordPerfect file.  I recall
>somebody posted a FTP site with a program that could defeat the
>'encryption' used.  Could somebody please e-mail me the site & filename?

>Failing that, does anyone have any info on the encryption scheme
>WordPerfect uses (& I'll try to break it myself...)

I can't remember the name of it, but I remember seeing a program that was
floating around the net that could break files encrypted with WordPerfect.
I'm pretty sure that the version that was available publicly was intended
more as a demonstration of the weakness of wp's crypt algorithm rather
than as a tool for breaking into files.  It was limited to files encrypted
with passwords that were four characters or less in length.  I think that
there was a more powerful version available for a fee, but I might be
mistaken about that.

If it's important to get recover whatever's been encrypted, you might be
better off getting in touch with this company:

	AccessData
	87 East 600 South
	Orem, Utah  84508
	(800) 658-5199

It says in the documentation to PGP that this company seels a program for
$185 that will decrypt files locked with WordPerfect and a variety of
other programs.  According to the PGP docs, the program doesn't just guess
passwords -- which is what I *believe* the program I mentioned above does.
It uses more sophisticated techniques that are much faster.  You can read
about it in the docs for PGP2.1 (for FTP locations, check
alt.security.pgp), in the section on "Snake-Oil".

BTW:  If you do buy this program, will you post something about it?  I'm
curious about how well it works.

>Thanks,
>Dane Butzer
>butzerd@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu

Alex


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: LUC Public-key Encryption
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.134309.29150@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> mrr@scss3.cl.msu.edu (Mark Riordan) writes:
>The January 1993 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal has an article by
>Peter Smith on a new public-key encryption algorithm called LUC.
>This algorithm, based on "Lucas sequences", resembles RSA in
>that it involves modular arithmetic based on N, the product of two 
>large primes, and a second number, e.
>
>A Lucas sequence, V[i](P,Q), is defined as follows.  P is the message
 
This is nothing new. A 'Lucas Sequence' is nothing more than a disguised
way of doing exponentiation in the twisted sub-group of a finite field
with p^2 elements. This is the sub-group that has order p+1, as opposed to
p-1, which is the group that RSA is based upon.

This has been well known for a long time among number theorists.
 
>The author, who is also the inventor of the LUC algorithm,

While I won't cry 'plagiarism', since the author may be unaware of
prior developments, for him to claim to be the 'inventor' is bogus
at best. It is NOT new.

>Not surprisingly, the author is attempting to patent the system
>and is looking for people to license it to.  A provisional patent

He should not be able to patent this, since what he has done was all
known before.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:28:12 GMT


Felix Gallo posts what I read as a sincere and partly moving
message. Unfortunatly, I have difficulty with part of his central
logic, which essentially argues that the law should be what he
thinks it should be, rather than what the elected representatives
of the people made it.

He is, of course, correct that anyone without adequate funds
is in a very weak position to challenge what they think are
unfair laws, unless they can get one of the large number of
public interest law firms (another wonderful thing about
our country), to take their matter.

Given the existence of such firms, though, the situation here
isn't as bad as he fears.

Dunno about the U.K., though, since I haven't lived there since 1962.

David
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Status of DES, or "Is the DES Standard PD?"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 02:19:51 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Distribution: world
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
NNTP-Posting-Host: chaos.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b22

heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:
> From what I understand, that's not totally true.  While the _specs_ 
> might be the same, IBM also submitted a rationale for the DES method.  
> This rationale document remains classified, and some wonder if it 
> contains information that severely weakens DES. 

Actually, on this very newsgroup some time back there was a posting from a 
person at IBM which explained that the DES design team knew about 
differential cryptanalysis at the time, and designed DES to be resistant to 
it.  However, this crytanalytic technique was not public knowledge, and so 
this rationale was kept secret.

Some 20 years later, when differential cryptanalysis was discovered in the 
academic world, researchers (notably Shamir, I believe) were annoyed to 
discover that the particular S-boxes in DES "just happened" to render the 
technique useless from a pragmatic standpoint in the cryptanalysis of DES.

Ironically enough, it seems that IBM and the NSA secretly *strengthened* DES 
rather than weakening it.

The key size, however, remains an open issue, as do allegations of key 
clustering.  Remember also that it was never aimed at more than a reasonable 
amount of security, which it still provides.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: sowa@netcom.com (Erik Sowa)
Subject: Re: RSA Data Security Not All Bad
Organization: Wahoo 5
	<1992Dec17.095122.19697@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:38:25 GMT

>>>>> "David" == David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com> writes:

David> Lucio de Re asks if commercial products using RSA cannot be exported. That's
David> right. The version of Lotus Notes that uses it is an example.

David> I guess companies think there's a big enough market without it. Given
David> the notorious lack of ethics in some countries, leading to massive
David> software piracy (Italy and Taiwan come immediately to mind), they
David> probably aren't losing much anyway.

Then the export restriction isn't protecting much, either.

-- 
Erik Sowa (sowa@netcom.com)
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5803 alt.security.pgp:248
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:01:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Just a small factual correction for Steve Simmons. My understanding
is that some PKP patents expire in 1997 and others in about 2000.
When I said people had had 15 years to challenge the patents, I was
being approximate, since I don't know how long it was known they
were applying for patents before they did.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Looking for a secure digest algorithm.
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 7 Dec 92 22:33:35 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Keywords: cryptography message digest algorithms checksums

In <1fhnc6INN3ao@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> markd@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Mark Diamond) writes:

>One last thing. For Australian purposes, the "prior-art" issue is
>largely irrelevant.  The person entitled to a patent on an invention in
>Australia is the person who first files for a patent, not the person who
>invents.  This is the reverse of US law where an inventor who can prove
>that they invented something first is entitled to the patent.

I am not an Australian, or a lawyer, but....

"Prior art" is still relevant to patents.  If you can show that an
invention was publically available prior to the date of the patent
application, it should not be patentable.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: More RSA questions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:35:13

In article <AfATsxL0Bwx2F93KFX@transarc.com> Pat_Barron@transarc.com writes:

   1)  During the exponentiation, the numbers get *really* big.  Like, I
   was shocked at how quickly they got big.  Is there any shortcut for
   computing m^e mod n, without actually computing m^e first?  Like, can
   I loop somehow, accumulating partial results, until at the end I have
   the value m^e mod n, without having actually computed m^e first?  Even
   if I choose, say, 3 or 5 as the private key, the public exponent tends
   to be big enough that m^e is way beyond the capacity of a 32-bit
   unsigned integer.

Compute m^e mod n by repeated squaring and multiplication mod n.
Here is pseudo-C for it (warning, this routine may infringe RSA patent :-) )
   
int expmod (int x, int s, int n)  /* compute x^s mod n */
{
   int p;
   if (s == 0) return 1;
   p = expmod (x, s/2, n); /* an efficient version wouldn't recurse */
   p = p * p;
   if (s % 2 == 1) 
	p *= x;
   return p % n;
}

   2)  I chose the private key and public exponent by brute force.  Is
   a better way to choose the private key than to factor (p-1)(q-1) and
   choose something with no common factors?  Is there a better way to
   find the public exponent than just trying all the possible values
   until you find it (which is what I did)?

The public exponent should just be a random number between 3 and the modulus.

To tell if A and B have common factors, you don't have to factor either
A or B.  Just use the Euclidean GCD algorithm, which is very efficient.
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Force-Feeding New Technology to Spies
Date: 17 Dec 1992 02:41:58 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Virtually all the recent books I've read on the subject take the
position that Ultra did NOT identify Coventry ahead of time.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:41:18 GMT


Bill Stewart corrects my understanding of PGP and IDEA (thanks), which
suggests that troubles for possession and/or use of PGP2.x in the U.S.
can also come from the Munitions Act since PGP is based on an import
of the IDEA implementation, rather than domestic coding of the IDEA
algorithm.

If my understanding is now accurate that PGP2.x violates both the
Munitions Act and PKP's patents, and that this violation is occasioned
not just by use but also by possession in the U.S., then it would seem
prudent to get it off one's U.S. computers and any U.S. net
sites--Internet, Usenet, Fidonet, anynet. Presence on a bulletin board
system may be just what someone needs to close down that system.

As for the argument that some make that "you" will probably neither get
caught nor prosecuted for this illegality, the ethics of that position
are open to the most serious questions (assuming my understanding
of the underlying situation is accurate).

Finally, given my understanding, the notion that if it's uploaded all
over the place, what can "they" do seems to betray a lack of both
realism and ethics. Try the argument that if lots of people take
cocaine, what can "they" do?  to see this.

The proposal to produce a de novo version here in the U.S., based on
the IDEA algorithm (if published and the IDEA folks permit it), and
RSAREF (assuming RSA will license RSAREF for PGP), in contrast seems
both ethical and legal, if I understand this correctly.

Just a passing point on the latter paragraph--people shouldn't count
their RSAREFs 'til they're hatched. RSA still owns RSAREF, and though
they've licensed it, with a specific associated agreeement, for ripem,
that doesn't mean they HAVE to license it for a future PGP. Whoever is
doing this "legal PGP" project should check with Jim Bidzos of RSA
at their earliest opportunity (jim@rsa.com).

For completeness and to acknowledge a particular position (with which
I disagree), some feel that it's absurd to prevent use of something
here that's widespread in Europe, and are willing to take a chance in
order to press that. Others feel that PKP's patents are over-broad and
are willing to confront on that issue. That's got to be an individual
and conscious choice, which should be made clear to others, so nobody
gets or uses PGP under the impression it's "o.k." My own position is
that if one thinks a law or situation is incorrect, one moves to get
it changed, if possible. One does not take the law into one's own
hands. One particularly doesn't take innocent bystanders down with
one.

Any more bidding on this one before I conclude I now understand it?
From: orb@cs.utexas.edu (Norman Richards)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: crypt breakers workbench
Date: 15 Dec 1992 15:33:31 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu

 Hi there.  I just got a copy of the cbw program.  I really like it and
it seems to have have a lot of power, but it also seems to require a bit
of skill and experience.  I would be curious to hear from others who are 
using this and learn some techniques.  In addition, I would like to know
if there are other programs out there for breaking encrypted files.  (the
cbw program works with files created under unix crypt)

  Thanks...
 
_____________________________________________________________________________
orb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu              "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
                                     I chose to climb the nearest tree.
                                     And that has made all the difference."
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5925 alt.security:5174
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:20:19 GMT
 <MOORE.92Dec18095153@defmacro.cs.utah.edu> <1992Dec18.215750.1696@netcom.com>
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec18.215750.1696@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>Tim Moore makes the interesting point that PGP 2.x contains RSADSI code
>for the MD5 algorithm. He goes on to say it's licensed to all.

>Aha! The smoking gun?

Finally a point we can agree on (in part).  The question becomes whether
RSA gave an unrestricted license on the code.  I don't have a copy of THAT
license agreement, so I can't say.


--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re : LUC Public-key Encryption
From: mike-l@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Mike Lennon )
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:09:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

don't rubbish LUC till you've read the article.  The Lucas function idea
has been known for some time (possibly first using Dickson polynomials
in 1981), but the speed with which they can be worked out doesn't seem
to have been noticed.

 

Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5781 alt.security.pgp:231
From: crespin@nadir.uucp (Rudy Crespin)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: RSA Question (was Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:51:39 -0800
Organization: UUCP San Diego, CA

In <PHR.92Dec16022546@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    Please excuse my ignorance, but, how can "your wife" decode the message
>    knowing 34, 91, 7, and 13?

>    i.e. I have a number
>      (X^3) moulo 77 (product of two primes) = 48
>    what is my number? and how did you get the answer?

[Stuff Deleted]

>In the case of N=77 and N=91, phi(N) is a multiple of 3 so no
>suitable t exists.  You have to have picked your original primes
>p and q to make this not happen.

O.K., now that you've excused my ignorance, I beg you excuse my stupidity.

Same number  X^3(mod, 391) = 133 
(phi(N) is not divisible by 3) What is my number?

I tried to figure out t, but got stumped.
Thanks again,
Rudy Crespin

-- 
                                                      _           _
   ---   O       | Rudy Crespin                    | / \ |\ | __ / \ |\ |
   --   <^-      | crespin@nadir.uucp              | \_/ | \|    \_/ | \|
  --  -\/\       | crash!nadir!crespin             | 
  ---     \      |                                 |- No-No, it is On-On.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.230642.9747@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>In this he fails to distinguish between ideas and algorithms (permitted
>via footnote in ITAR) and programs and software code (specifically
>prohibited).

I'm glad you can draw such a precise, clear line between these two
categories.  Where would you place the mathematical expressions

C = M^e mod n
and
M = C^d mod n

given that they can be typed directly into some of the fancier
infinite-precision mathematics packages and executed? Is this an
algorithm (not controlled) or a piece of software code (controlled)?
Perhaps it becomes "software" only when I put semicolons on the end of
each formula?

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: A new encryption problem?
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121



Iain Mccord *   That  as  computer  data  is  easily  forged,  it can be
              admissable only  as hearsay evidence, if  at all. There is
              no  way, that  I know  of, to  prove when,  and by whom, a
              given file on a computer was  created. If that is the only
              evidence available to the court then the case has not been
              proven.
                                 = = =

    Tell that to  the FBI when they sieze BBS's  because some users have
    uploaded a  commercial program, or perhaps  S 893 does not  apply to
    BBS's because they are not an active party.

    This does bring  up the argument though.. If I  have a message on my
    harddrive  that is  encrypted using  my secret  key there  is a good
    chance  that I  wrote it  since it  is not  something that is easily
    'forged'. It would be interesting just how something like this would
    stand up in court. If I sent  you an agreement and you signed off on
    it with  your signature key is  it a legal /  binding agreement? Can
    signatures  via  encrypted  keys  be  valid.  I  agree  that  plain,
    unecrypted text is  easily forged. (Getting it on  my computer would
    be a  different manner) but,  we're not talking  about easily forged
    data here.  I feel that  encryption using PGP  or another encryption
    format takes the 'easily' out of the argument.

    Well, I'm  not qualified to make  the judgement, I'll leave  that to
    more informed minds.
---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * Computers are OUR business, our ONLY business
                              
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: cyoung@thor.ece.uc.edu (Christopher Young)
Subject: Re: Oh hell, here we go again!
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:45:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.150146.28325@linus.mitre.org>, hal@harbor.mitre.org (Hal Feinstein) writes:
|> 
|> There are literally dozens of newgroups dedicated to consider every shade of
|> opinion. Why not post to them?  And stop cross posting to sci.crypt
|> this just duplicates stuff going on in other groups  and it
|> just chews up bandwidth.  Maybe, just maybe we can get back to the 
|> original  subject: cryptography

Here Here! My Session kill button is ready to fall off.
If I want to read Insert.discussion.group.here, I will subscribe. I may
already subscribe to the group, so I don't need to see the message twice.
(restraint please) :-)

I admit that there cannot be a discussion about science without discussing 
its effects on society, but can we achieve a better signal/noise ratio? 
All of the talk about drug dealers and conspiracy is getting old.
I read this group to expand my knowledge of cryptography, and hear INFORMED  :-) :-) :-)
opinions. (Please supply references if you think someone would like to
investigate your claim) 

I am not saying that people have not been expressing informed opinions, but 
there have been some claims I have seen where a supporting reference 
would have been a nice touch. 

(Whew.... I needed to get that off my chest)

(THIS SHOULD NOT BE READ AS A FLAME. Please send all flames to Bit.Bucket)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Young    				|	To those who don't
University of Cincinnati       			|	want to bear the cost
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering |  	of changing society,
mail location 30				|	will bear the brunt
Cincinnati, OH. 45221				|	of the society they
(513)556-0904 					|	will not recognize.
						|
cyoung@thor.ece.uc.edu				|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.crypt