HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: MD5 as an encryption engine?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:27:32 GMT

In article <1ht56mINNbl3@transfer.stratus.com> cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
>It's the code using MD5 or exponentiation which would be the encryption
>code -- not the digest or exponentiation code itself.

Which is ironic, of course, considering that all of the cryptographic
strength of the resulting cipher would come from MD5, not the code
that turns it into a cipher. The latter is completely linear, so it
contributes nothing on its own.

This topic got discussed here over a year ago. At the time I think we
settled on a DES-inspired, "braided" Feistel structure that looked
like this:

Divide plaintext P into two halves, P1 and P2.

A = MD5(Key1,P1) XOR P2
C1 = MD5(Key2,A) XOR P1
C2 = MD5(Key3,C1) XOR A

Now concatenate to produce ciphertext C = C1,C2.  To decrypt, reverse
the steps:

A = MD5(Key3,C1) XOR C2
P1 = MD5(Key2,A) XOR C1
P2 = MD5(Key1,P1) XOR A

And P = P1,P2.

Note the use of three separate keys, one for each round. This is
important. (I think the formal proofs of this algorithm's security
require this.)  They can be generated from a single key by successive
MD5 hashing, if desired.  Also, the actual complete MD5 function need
not be used here; you could extract its internal "transform" function
and use it instead, as long as you're willing to use its internal
block sizes of 64 bytes in, 16 bytes out. In this case, the subkeys
would each be 48 bytes and P and C would be 32 bytes, which might be a
bit unwieldly for some applications.

Also, this algorithm won't be as fast as MD5 used for hashing. A
single turn of the MD5 "crank" crunches 64 bytes of input, but here
the encryption of 32 bytes of data requires three executions of MD5 --
6 times slower.

Phil
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: [legality of PGP etc.
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:17:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <12.2B394400@purplet.demon.co.uk>, Owen.Lewis@purplet.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis) writes:
> It is disingenuous to suppose that the *national only* 
> patenting was just an unfortunate happenstance. What about the 
> similar lack of international patenting of DES? Has any US 
> organisation ever chosen to seek worldwide patents on ANY 
> cryptographic product?

I think you're speaking from hindsight when you comment on the lack
of international patent protection for 1970's-vintage cryptosystems.
Apart from the novelty of attempting to patent something algorithmic
back then, there was much less awareness of the international market
in the U.S.  That may even include IBM, though their patent division
is very sophisticated.  But they never chose to enforce their DES
patents, nor even to collect nominal royalties; they may have felt
that filing foreign patents wasn't worth the (quite considerable) cost.
If you want, I'll supply the U.S. patent numbers; someone with access
to the appropriate databases can check whether or not non-U.S. patents
were ever applied for.

As for your second question -- yes, I know of several instances where
non-U.S. patents on cryptographic devices have been applied for by U.S.
companies.  One caveat -- NSA (well, the Department of Defense, but
NSA in reality) is empowered to file secrecy orders against cryptographic
patent applications, which would block foreign patent applications from
being filed.  Normally, in order to file a foreign application, one has
to receive what's called a ``blue letter'' from the U.S. patent office.
A secrecy order can arrive instead...  I think it's possible to file
non-U.S. patents without file domestically first, but at the very least,
it's much more difficult.  There is an international patent convention
which somewhat simplifies the problem of multiple filings, but it's not
nearly as automatic as, say, the Berne Convention is for copyrights.

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: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:31:59 GMT


Vesselin posts a long message, which contains a misstatement of fact and
a number of claims. Let me treat the first, and then see if I can
cut through the second.

I don't argue the law and then if that doesn't work, argue ethics.
Vesselin cannot have been reading my posts very carefully if
he thinks so.

In the U.S., I argue the law, since the issue is patents and that RSA
has one, and that the Munitions act covers imports as well as exports.

In Europe, where I have never argued RSA's patents apply, and I have
never argued the U.S. Munitions laws apply, I argue the ethics of
taking an invention without compensation.  Like most such discussions
here, these arguments have evolved as we learn from each other. That
argument also applies in the U.S.

It's not a fallback position, but two separate sets of arguments for
two separate situations--the one in Europe and the one in the U.S.

Now let me try to cut through a lot of what seems to me to be
posturing and rationalization about the legality of PGP in Europe. By
starting a separate topic, I asked the public question about Munitions
and crypto laws in European countries, and everybody who was so
vociferous about their "rights" to use PGP there immediately fell
silent.  However, I received several e-mail responses from those who
hadn't participated so far, pointing out, with details, that the
crypto and munitions laws in most European countries (maybe not
Finland or Bulgaria--dunno) are much more stringent than in the U.S.
(We may never find out about the crypto laws in Finland, since Jyrki
says he's put me on his kill list.)

Thus I suggest for Vesselin's (and others') consideration that they
may be violating the laws of the countries they are in by using PGP
without (for example) getting permission from the appropriate
Minister, as in France. If true, that would make all the posturing
about how the U.S. Munitions laws don't apply to Europe and hence PGP
is o.k. completely bogus.

In the case of Vesselin, specifically, I suggest he check out
the German crypto and Munitions laws, since that's where he
apparently has PGP on a computer. If he's planning to use it
in Bulgaria, he may also wish to check out those laws.

David
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: csc@pilot.njin.net (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: LUC vs. RSA
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:35:11 GMT
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY

Could someone please post a few details of LUC instead of bickering
over where it's exportable/importable or not.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:32:02 GMT

Starting sci.crypt.research sounds good to me.

Is there some way to run an unmoderated newgroup with some kind of special
software to limit the number of postings to one per day from each person?
Think what that would do to the flame wars.  There could still be political
discourse, but rationed postings would make people choose the words (and
their battles) carefully.  We wouldn't get 20 postings a day from the same 
person.

Is this a feasible idea?  I don't know enough about Internet newsgroup
software to answer this question.  Can it be made feasible?
From: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Privacy -- encrypt/decrypt devices on Wireless phones
Date: 29 Dec 1992 16:00:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


	I would like to ask, specifically, if anyone has information 
concerning encrypting/decrypting wireless phones?  Someone mentioned in a
recent post that Motorola has such a thing, but, how about AT&T or other
big giants? Do they have any wireless phones that are "secure" or are 
there any plans for it, on a wide-scale basis? I must say, that about a
couple of months ago, my son borrowed a friend's hand-held scanner, and 
began to listen, just out of curiousity.  When I heard him listening in
to wireless phone conversations, I became annonyed and explained to him
that it was not right to listen in on private conversations. I beccame
quite upset, knowing the potential of this problem. I see no reason why
for example, a base unit and a handheld cordless phone, cannot have at 
least the same privacy as a wired line.  For this reason, I am asking this
question as a serious one.  I surely would not like someone eavesdropping
on my conversations.  I know that the choice was mine, but did not realized
how simple it was to intercept a wirless conversation.  If there are no
specific wirless base-handheld phones that employ sophisicated privacy
features, are there any devices that can be added to existing wirless
phones?  Thanks.
-- 

Dan Frezza
Internet: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jimlynch@netcom.com (Jim Lynch)
Subject: Re: PGP - Legal?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 13:25:46 GMT

jani.patokallio%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) wrote:
>>>>>
OK folks, here's the PGP question of the day.
 
I am a Finnish citizen with diplomatic immunity residing in the United States.
I'm not sure about this, but I think PGP and RSA are legal in Finland.
 
I recently stumbled into a copy of PGP 2.1 on a local BBS.  Now,
hypothetically, if I obtained this program, would I be breaking the law?
My house is rented and thus not extraterritorial property.  How about
if I took it to a house owned by the Finnish government, and thus legally
considered not a part of the US?
 
Also, suppose I had gotten my PGP in Europe.  Could I legally bring it to
the U.S.?  How about the U.N. via the U.S.?
 
Third, suppose I had a copy of PGP.  Could I take it to the
U.S.?  To other Finnish/non-American citizens here?  To the Finnish Embassy,
which is extraterritorial?
 
And a final question.  If any of the above were illegal, could PKP
sue me?  Could the U.S. government do more than declare me a
persona non grata and request the Finnish government to try me?
 
Thank you in advance.
<<<<<

You have diplomatic immunity. You can do anything!
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Finding BIG prime factors...
Date: 2 Jan 93 00:45:16 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

I just remembered something which I read in (I think) "Computer" from about
6 or 7 years ago, only I can't remember the details and the question has been
annoying me for years, whenever I think about it.

There was an article about finding the prime factors of fairly large numbers
(I believe on the order of 600 digits) of the form N=pq where p and q are
primes.  The article went on to say that somewhere some folks had a machine
and software that could get said prime factors in precisely *3* machine
cycles.  What I cannot remember was what this systems type was.  I seem to
remember it being something called a "systolic" system, but I am not sure.
I have forgotten the basic ideas behind these, so now I am doubly confused.

Any of you folks know anything about such systolic systems (if indeed these
are the one's I am thinking of) and how they go about sifting large primes
in so short a time?  

Thanks,

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: adykes@jpradley.jpr.com (Al Dykes)
Subject: Re: Enigma, ULTRA
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 11:47:15 GMT
Organization: Unix in NYC

>In article <1489@eouk23.eoe.co.uk>, ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley) writes:
> 
>|> Does anyone know of any technical description in the open literature
>|> of the work done at Bletchley Park during WW2?
>

Check the index of the _Annals of the History of the History of Computing_



Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: htoyryla@ntc01.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: Crypt. methods used in GSM?
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:07:49 GMT

In article <ARI.HUTTUNEN.92Dec21003500@cardhu.cs.hut.fi>, Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Huttunen) writes:
> What encryption algorithm is used in GSM (Groupe Special Mobile)
> mobile phones? It is my understanding that some single-key
> encryption algorithm is used, where the phone company supplies
> both partisipants of the conversation the necessary key.
> 
> How secure is this algorithm? And how about the phone companies?
> 
> For those of you who are not familiar with GSM, it is a digital
> mobile phone system that will cover the whole of Europe. And
> no, the algorithm is not an XOR-operation, that much I already
> know. BTW, judging by the discussion here a while ago, we won't
> be able to sell those phones to the US...;)
> 
> ................................................................................
> Ari Huttunen				 

GSM has encryption algorithms for encrypting of both speech/data
and of signalling. The encryption is over the air (from user to
base station) and not between two users. If there is a call between
two GSM subscribers, the encryption at both ends is independent of
the other. The actual keys are NEVER transferred over the air.

Some of the algorithms used are specified in the GSM specs.
Some of them are (or can be) operator specific. This is because
each subscriber gets an intelligent card from the operator
which (and not the actual GSM phone) carries the subscriber
dependent info.

Regards

Hannu

(Don't ask me more, I'm not the expert. This was all that I know.)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannu Toyryla            htoyryla@ntc01.tele.nokia.fi
Nokia Telecommunications (Nokia Cellular Systems, Private Mobile Radio)
P.O.B  77    SF-02610 ESPOO FINLAND
TEL	+ 358 0 5118366      FAX	+ 358 0 5118400
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Simple PGP question 
Distribution: world
Organization: Extropy Institute
Reply-To: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:49:12 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In article <1992Dec22.210910.29667@rna.indiv.nluug.nl> gerben@rna.indiv.nluug.nl writes:

>If I try to "sign" a message with -s, the original text is encrypted. I want to
>have a sort of "digital signature" appended after the text. I could use pgp -bs
> for  
>that, but is that the way to go? And what if I want to use a unix pipe?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-- 
>Gerben Wierda                 Tel. (+31) 35 833539
>  "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
>  From the Talmud(?), rephrased in Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland".
>

Gerben,

Try

pgp -sta +clearsig=on <plaintext>

Hope this helps.  That's what signed the post you're looking at
now!  ;-)

- -- 

Russell Earl Whitaker                   whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
Communications Editor                       71750.2413@compuserve.com
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought         AMiX: RWHITAKER
Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI)
================ PGP 2.0 public key available =======================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.1

iQCVAgUBKzi0dITj7/vxxWtPAQEamQP/Xo/t8ZuZpyjJtlPnvAwH3LCqM+H0NJBx
6UWeQNFOjJE0KgLwkEcmjgwNQAgLZ40O0BoUbyUR3TfCsK2PYxEopDYLxMhSwX09
h08N9X6/fqWWy0933Cn5c6lt5Q6/Qc17CujKgRiRRnEdVRf9KCO6T6nRGvj93ebp
n4g0yqQrvmA=
=JIrZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Telephonic Poker?
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:56:28 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

I was reading a paper that explained the RSA algorithm
in layman's terms, and among other things it said, "An
interesting side benefit of this algorithm is that it
makes it possible for two people who do not trust each
other to play poker by telephone." I've thought about
it, and I can't for the life of me figure out HOW. The
paper did not elaborate. Can someone explain to me the
algorithm with which two mutually distrusting players can
play poker by phone (or, more simply, have a fair coin
toss)?

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: injc@helios.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Joerg Czeranski)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:37:39 GMT

David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) wrote:
: I said that government takes cryptographic violations of munitions
: laws much more seriously than the building of airplane models.
: 
: Steve Gardner's response that nobody is harmed by cryptography is
: appalling. Consider the lives lost or saved through cryptographic
: activities during wars, anti-terrorism, drug enforcement, etc.

Well, we should rather avoid wars than avoiding use of cryptography.
Or would you prohibit the export of screws and nails?  Screws are surely
essential in building tanks, but the technology for manufacturing screws
is of course known outside of the U.S.

Isn't that equally the case with cryptography?  The algorithms and ideas
behind RSA, DES, MD5, etc. are known in europe, russia and - no doubt - iraq.
And all over the world there are programmers, who can implement RSA.  So why
should your government bother about letting americans export cryptographic
software?

joerg

--
Joerg Czeranski
Osteroeder Strasse 55          EMail injc@sun.rz.tu-clausthal.de
W-3392 Clausthal-Zellerfeld    SMTP  injc@[139.174.1.3]
Germany

(.sig under construction, sorry for the inconvenience)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: olsen@athena.mit.edu (James J Olsen)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.211405.22406@netcom.com>
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>I like the phrasing I came up with for this message: "using RSA's
>invention without compensation".  And the notion in that phrasing is
>at the core of my ethical argument...

Every day, we use inventions without compensating their inventors.
For example, when I make a telephone call, I feel no obligation to pay
money to the heirs of Alexander Graham Bell.  This is not because of
"self-interest", or a philisophical objection to hardware patents, but
because the patent which Bell received was of only limited scope.  The
most obvious limitation is time, and the duration of Bell's patent has
expired.  However, there are other limits on the scope of a patent,
which go hand in hand with the duration limit.

One of the most fundamental limits is the nature of the patent itself.
This may be best illustrated by contrasting patent and copyright
protection.

  A copyright is the "exclusive right" to do certain things with a
  copyrighted work.

  A patent is the "right to exclude others" from doing certain things
  with a patented invention.

Copyright infringement is, in itself, a violation of the copyright
holder's "exclusive right".  Patent infringement makes the infringer
subject to the patent holder's "right to exclude others", which the
patent holder may or may not exercise.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the PKP patent is valid and its
subject matter is appropriate for patent coverage.  If PKP does not
exercise its "right to exclude others" by filing an infringement suit,
what *specific* right of PKP's is a PGP user in the USA violating?  If
the use of PGP is violating no rights, how can it be unethical?
--
Jim Olsen  --  olsen@mit.edu  --  Vote Marrou in '92!
From: sspy@west.darkside.com (mshannon)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: DES, etc
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:59:13 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

Another question, gentlemen, if you would:
Is there a program available that actually uses the RSA algorithm for the 
encryption?
When one says they "assume the spooks have been able to break the DES" is 
that assumed to be in CBC or only in ECB mode?
Anyone know the longest product of primes that has been factored, time 
taken, and what increase there might be in the next 20 years in speed?
Again, thanks in advance
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, 21 Dec 1992 19:02:49 GMT


There would be no legal or Munitions Act problems, as far as I can see
(in response to a message of Vesselin's), in writing a "new" PGP
in the U.S., from scratch, incorporating RSAREF. It could be written
to be file and message compatible with the version in Europe that
takes RSA's invention without compensation.

There would be certain restrictions, however. It could not be exported,
could only be used for private, non-commercial use, and if it used
IDEA, there would be certain questions that would have to be answered
about the Munitions Act--namely whether IDEA could be imported into
the U.S., say, as an algorithm rather than code, and whether the Swiss
owners of IDEA would be as happy with its inclusion in the U.S. version
as the European version.

Alternatively, the U.S. version could use DES and the European version
reprogrammed to use the a from-scratch programmed DES based on the
public description. (Using a version of DES code illegally exported
from the U.S. would not count).

The only other question is whether PKP/RSA would license RSAREF for
such a U.S. PGP. Though they have done so for ripem, they are not
obligated to do so for anything else. if they did, however, note
that the license allows for RSAREF modifications by the user,
so it could be tailored to PGP's needs.

Xref: sparky sci.crypt:6210 alt.security.pgp:435
From: injc@sun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Joerg Czeranski)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: RSA Question (was Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality)
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:12:11 GMT
Organization: Techn. Univ. Clausthal
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Rudy Crespin (crespin@nadir.uucp) wrote:
: Yes! I still don't get how you figure out 133^235 without blowing up your PC.

You needn't calculate 133^235, only 133^235 mod 391.
First you can use square-and-multiply (see Knuth, Vol 2):
133^235 = 133^234*133 = (133^117)^2*133=(133^176*133)^2*133 = ...
 Then there is (a*b) mod m = (a mod m)*(b mod m), so instead of using
huge numbers, you can reduce modulo 391 every time, you have done a
square- or a multiply-step.
 For discussion of fast multiply-, square- and modulo-reduction-algorithms
again read D.E.Knuth, The art of computer programming, Vol 2.  There are
even faster algorithms for exponentiation than square-and-multiply, some of
which are also discussed in Knuth, Vol 2.

Joerg

--
Joerg Czeranski
Osteroeder Strasse 55          EMail injc@sun.rz.tu-clausthal.de
W-3392 Clausthal-Zellerfeld    SMTP  injc@[139.174.1.3]
Germany

PGP Public Key will soon be available upon request.

(.sig under construction, sorry for the inconvenience)
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:6036 alt.security.pgp:362