HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: export rules -- a new wrinkle
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:57:16 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec23.022218.803@ulysses.att.com> smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:

>I was ftp'ing some stuff from gatekeeper.decwrl.com, and saw an
>interesting motd.ftp file:

>     EXPORT CONTROL NOTE: Non-U.S. ftp users are required by law to follow U.S.
>     export control restrictions, which means that if you see some DES or
>     otherwise controlled software here, you should not grab it.  Look at
>     00README.export-control (in every directory, more or less) to learn more.
>     (If your the treaty between your country and the United States did not
>     require you to respect U.S. export control restrictions, then you would
>     not have Internet connectivity to this host.  Check with your U.S. embassy
>     if you want to verify this.)

>Since there's no U.S. embassy in New Jersey, I'll have to let someone else
>check it out...

How about ftp-by-mail gateways, oddly enough, including one at decwrl.com?
--
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: Owen.Lewis@purplet.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
From: Christopher_C_Lapp@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Hey, look, I didn't invent this stuff!
Date: Sat,  2 Jan 93 09:28:45 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Plaintext encryption can be used to militarily disarm an 
enemy.  Suppose all traffic of an organization was first 
encrypted in meaningful plaintext that was at least 
partially empricially verifiable.  Then >this< plaintext 
was encrypted with a compromisable standard-issue 
encrpytion scheme, and an adversary was given the 
means to decrypt this  cover-decrypt,  and read the 
plaintext.  Now give the adversary a  Coventry-type 
situation.  Your true message may be:  We need a sack 
of potatoes for the officers s dining room at base such 
and such.   But the encrypted message (plaintext) reads : 
 We have decided to bomb location [The  Coventry ], 
and destroy adversary x s radar equipment.   This 
plaintext message is then encrypted, in say, DES, and 
transmitted through the usual channels.  Some latter-day 
Churchill on the adversary s side may decide to let the 
radar facility be bombed, to preserve his ability to 
monitory DES-level communicaitons.  The originator of 
the message may >have< to bomb the radar facility, to 
maintain the illusion that the plaintext encrypt is actually 
a plaintext decrypt.  Isn t the spy business fun?
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Encryption/Decryption of Voice signals via normal phone line
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:12:57 GMT

In article <1hnth3INNjd3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:
>	I read about a week or so ago from USA Electronic edition of
>"Telecomunication", that phones in Europe (Cellular) were going to have
>encrypt/decrypt device in them.  I was wondering what the state of affairs
>in US are concerning this possibility for us

Unfortunately, thanks to NSA meddling, the cause of meaningful voice
privacy over cellular telephones is lost in the US. The "encryption
standard" that won out for IS-54B digital cellular is essentially the
same laughable XOR-with-a-fixed-key scheme that is frequently
mentioned here with regard to toy encryption packages for the PC.

That was the most the NSA would allow for export. Considering where
most cellular phones are made these days, a non-exportable algorithm
was not acceptable even for a US-only standard.

Now the IS-54B *authentication* scheme is much better, though not
perfect. But then again the NSA doesn't really care about
authentication, and the carriers and vendors who are writing the spec
care a lot more about protecting their revenue stream than their
customers' privacy.

Phil
From: Warren@switchboard.UUCP (Robert Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: My thoughts the PGP pillow fight...
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:58:41 GMT

I've been watching the bombs go back and forth on PGP vs. Patents and
I would like to post my 0.002$ worth's. But first of all, let's have
a small reality check and confirm that the US _doesn't_ include
Canada - look at the map.

Second of all, it seems to me like alot of people are confusing
ethics and law. Ethics is the code by which you live. It isn't
universal and will never be. There are no "ethics" about PGP, it's a
personal decision, period. Then there's the dreaded law. It's basicly
written by moron's who have no concept of what they are writhing
anyways. Finally, there's justice - an eden where everything is set
"right" for everyone. All three are distinct.

Someone meantionned that PKP/RSA wouldn't sell license for PGP, even
if no actual code, specs, help is given. It seems to me that they
won't even allow for a one way street. More than that, they are
pushing for everyone to switch to another standart. (Not a flame
towards ripem)

I'm really curious about their motives.

Reply via News/Mail as you see fit.

Regards,
        Robert Warren

Regards,
        Robert Warren
From: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Anyone know about FEAL-8
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:56:37 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

JAMES LEWIS NANCE (jlnance@eos.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: 
: I have been reading a 1988 paper by Miyaguchi, Shiraishi, and Shimizu in which
: they describe an encryption algorithm they call FEAL-8.  I am interested in
: this algorithm because it was designed to run quickly on computers.  I have 
: never heard of it anywhere before and I have the following questions about it.
: Can anyone help me?
: 
: 1) Is FEAL-8 Secure (as compared to DES)?

It's not as secure as DES.  There is a chosen plaintext attack which
can crack FEAL-8 (when used in ECB mode) with a couple of thousand
encryptions.  This does require, however, that the FEAL-8 user encrypt
these plaintexts sent to him by an attacker.  This attack isn't a
problem if:

a.  You change keys frequently, by using a key exchange method such as
Diffie-Hellman or RSA.
b.  You never use ECB mode, but use CBC instead.

FEAL-32 (FEAL with 32 rounds) appers to be as resistant to
cryptanalysis as DES, at least for the time being.

: 2) Is C source code available for it anywhere?

There's no need.  The algorithm is trivial, and any competent C
programmer should be able to code it in a few hours.  I recommend the
use of assembly for high speed implementations.

: 3) Is it patented

Not as far as I know.

: 4) Is it a good choice for a fast, secure private key method?

Probably not, because of the vulnerability to attack mentioned in the
answer to question 1.  IDEA is an alternative, but is patented.  I
suggest you also look as Khufu, which was described recently in one of
the CRYPTO proceedings (I think '91?).  This is a cipher from Xerox
PARC, designed by Ralph Merkle.  I think it's patented too.
 
Andrew.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Good book
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:40:58 GMT

J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, by Curt Gentry.

There is not much technical stuff about cryptography in this book,
but many amazing, lurid accounts of FBI bugging and wiretaps, legal
and otherwise, and the things that were done with the results.

People interested in cryptography, privacy, etc. who liked "The
Codebreakers" should look for this book.  It's a $15 trade paperback,
less outrageously priced than the Codebreakers.

By the way, if you're in or near Berkeley CA, Moe's Books on Telegraph
has some used copies of The Codebreakers (hardcover) for about $35
each (they're $60 new).  They're on the 4th floor in the military
history section.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Reply-To: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Organization: Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:49:13 GMT

karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

> Amendment. I do not mean to disparage all the work that went into PGP,
> but any competent and motivated C programmer could have produced
> something comparable. Indeed, there are other independent RSA
> implementations from outside the US, such as the "CRYPTOS" package
> from Moscow.

Well, there is even one from Bulgaria, implemented by a friend of
mine. But it is by no means comparable with PGP. It uses full RSA to
encrypt the message (instead of using a single-key cypher and use RSA
only to encrypt the keys), so it is horrribly sloowww.... :-) It is
shareware, the author requests $30 for it, but I definitively do not
think that it is worth the price... Anyway, the author has told me
that he as received only one registration... :-)

Regards,
Vesselin
-- 
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany
From: ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Non-U.S. crypto laws
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:25:20 GMT
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S

gerben@rna.indiv.nluug.nl writes:

>France:

>  A law has been passed, stating you need a permit to use cryptohgraphic  
> soft- or hardware. But the law is not in effect yet, because they
> still have been  unable to think of a workable scheme to implement
> it. So currently, it is legal, but it might become illegal as soon
> as the implementation has been arranged.

I don't get this. If cryptographic SW or HW is illegal, how do you define
cryptography. If I invent another character set and translate from ASCII
to this new character set, will I be breaking French law? What is the
difference between another character set and a simple cryptographic system
with character-by-character replacement?

What about binary files? How can anyone tell the difference between a
binary file (containing, for example, a compiled version of a program)
and an encrypted text?


-- 
Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: ct@dde.dk
------------------------------- Why do they never serve pizza on airplanes?
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Subject: Re:  Exporting password protection
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:55:50 GMT


Thanks to you who have replied to my query on exporting password
protection.  You are correct that it is a matter for Commerce,
and not State, but that is the problem.

In July of '92, the Department of State, Bureau of Politico-
Military Affairs, issued an amendment to the International 
Traffic in Arms Regulations Munitions List.  Basically, it says
that a company wishing to export a mass market software product
containing encryption may apply to DOS (State) for a transfer
of jurisdiction to the Department of Commerce (DOC) IF the 
software is mass market (over the counter with no special
training or support  (process control systems require lots of
training and support, but not for encryption)) AND the data
encryption algorithm is RC4 and/or RC2 with a key space of 40
bits.  It is noted that RC4 and RC2 are proprietary to RSA
Data Security, Inc.  It must not be possible for both RC4 and
RC2 to operate on the same data.

If you can meet those criteria, you can be transferred to DOC
in one to two weeks.  The problem is that Commerce seems to
think that anything that hides data requires an export license.
Reading the words, it looks like rot13 would be prohibited
without a license.  Nor does it count that your non mass media
software uses the *same* encryption algorithm as mass media
software.

One kind of DOC license requires the recipient of the software
to swear that the software will not be exported to anyone on
the restricted list.  You can imagine how much trouble it must
be to keep up with the list.  Think about it.  The list is made
for geographical boundaries.  When is the last time that a piece
of geography threatened you?  Iran is on the forbidden list.  Are
there any citizens of Iran outside the geographical borders of
that country?  Do they have access to encryption techniques?  I
do not mean to pick on Iran, but only to show that the borders
have nothing to do with access to information.

We will, of course, comply with the law of the land, as interpreted
by the nearest bureaucrat.  By way of disclaimer, it is not my job
to find out what the bureaucracy requires; I only sit on the
sidelines and watch it all go by.

Today is the 21'st.  News arrives from the 15'th, so I still
invite email replies.

bill@texan.rosemount.com  Minneapolis, MN  (612) 895-2085
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:12:30 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>Note--this discussion applies to the U.S. situation.
>
>Toward the end of his latest message, Arthur L. Rubin finally reaches
>a point on which we can agree. It is a legitimate question to ask if
>the RSA patents are "legal" (whatever that means). One can ask
>such a question about any patent, or indeed law.
>
>The way to handle that, in my view, is not by reciting an incantation
>("I don't think it's legal.") and then violating the patent (which IS
>legal until ruled otherwise). Where I come from we call that "taking
>the law into one's own hands", and despite the attempts to cloak that
>act in legitimacy by citing civil disobedience of a historically
>ethical character, this isn't about civil rights or freedom--it's
>about whether one may use a specific patent for personal advantage
>without paying.

Bull. I would gladly pay Public Key Partners for a license for their
patent so I can use PGP. They will not grant me or anyone else a
license, and I don't feel safe with any other software. I doubt that
their patent is valid, but I'm willing to part with $20 or $50 or even
$100 for a personal license to use RSA any way I like, if only so I
won't be in a legally ambiguous state. Thus, you can't argue that I'm
"violating the law for pecuniary advantage", as I'm willing to forgo
any pecuniary advantage. The issue here IS freedom, pure and simple.
Public key cryptography is one of the most important ways around to
protect your privacy, and I will not do without it. I suspect most
other people on the net feel the same way.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (Alain Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:45:08 GMT

In <1992Dec27.043202.29306@ncar.ucar.edu>
prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann)
endorses:

> Starting sci.crypt.research sounds good to me.
> [ ... ]

	I would much rather create a talk group dedicated to political
	aspects, philosophical issues, and subversive proposals
	than move an existing group with a strong mandate and a very
	clearly identifiable hierarchy (sci).
	
	NO 	to sci.crypt.research
	YES	to talk.crypt
	YES	to keeping sci.crypt as is
	NO	to moderating either



--
 Alain - Canadian Patent #1310575
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: What is a property?  (was: No Reification Here)
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:05:27 GMT

In article <1hsmvoINNjc4@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>Does everyone in this discussion have the same notion of
>property?  Perhaps just to make sure, or to enlighten me, one of
>the participants would be kind enough to tell me what this notion
>is. 
>
>If I were asked whether every meaningful predicate expresses a
>property, my first answer would be "yes, of course." Even an
>expressive or attitudinal predicate such as "yummy" expresses a
>property that some things have, namely, eliciting the attitude or
>expression from the concerned speaker.  (Of course, to say this I
>must either reify the predicate or relativize my logic.  Is this
>Zeleny's point?)
>
>Russell

I follow Quine in saying that properties are simply extensions of
those predicates which happen to have extensions; i.e., sets.  General
predicates which do not necessarily have extensions can always be
quoted, and quoted predicates can be disguised as proper classes.
I admit no intermediate realm of intensions between quoted predicates
and frank sets, although such a realm can be built subsequently using
equivalence classes of syntactical objects.  This means that my notion
of "property" differs quite a lot from Zeleny's, for example.

-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.logic:2501 sci.philosophy.tech:4649
From: PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: What is a property?  (was: No Reification Here
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:59:51 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

>From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)

>Does everyone in this discussion have the same notion of
>property?  Perhaps just to make sure, or to enlighten me, one of
>the participants would be kind enough to tell me what this notion
>is.

This is a good point.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to say what a property is.

I am assuming that Zeleny and I are working with roughly the
same conception.

>If I were asked whether every meaningful predicate expresses a
>property, my first answer would be "yes, of course." Even an
>expressive or attitudinal predicate such as "yummy" expresses a
>property that some things have, namely, eliciting the attitude or
>expression from the concerned speaker.  (Of course, to say this I
>must either reify the predicate or relativize my logic.  Is this
>Zeleny's point?)

Here I am not sure what "expresses a property" means, even given
a definite conception of a property.

There are (at least) two possible views about "yummy" to distinguish.

First, let's call this view "Strict Subjectivism," one might say
that "X is yummy" means "X elicits the 'yummy-reaction' in me."
Strict Subjectivism fairly clearly does have it that "yummy"
expresses a property. It designates a property, though as Russell
says, a relational one. To say that something is yummy is to
describe it.

But second, let's call this "Expressivism," one might say, following
Ayer, that "X is yummy" does not express any proposition at all. It
does not describe. It "evinces" an attitude (this is what I have
meant by saying that a sentence "expresses" an attitude, but I will
use "evince" for this function and save "express" for the function
of designating or referring to a property in the more realist sense).

As I was understanding the issue, Strict Subjectivism does say
that "yummy" expresses a property, but Expressivism does not.
It says that the meaning of "yummy" is not that it expresses
any property at all. As Ayer said of "good," its function is
more like that of a special tone of voice, or a funny kind of
exclamation point.

I hope this will clarify the issue. I am close to giving up on
the topic.

And I suppose Randall has vanished at least temporarily.
It was a quite different question I asked him that led to
the present discussion.

Jamie
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
From: syliao@athena.mit.edu (Stan Yi-Huang Liao)
Subject: Recommendations sought
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:32:03 GMT

Hello.  I'm looking for a good book(s) on logic, computability, and
complexity.  Can anyone please suggest some authors and titles?

Many thanks in advance.

Stan

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4639 sci.logic:2496
From: PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
Subject: Re: No Reification Here
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:19:50 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

>From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
>Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:23:14 GMT
>
>Well -- this sort of thinking tends to commit you to some sort of
>Aristotelian realism, if not worse, and some of us would like to keep
>nominalism as a live option; recall your own earlier (possibly
>disdainful?) reference to "tropes".

Um.
Which sort of thinking??
I don't even know what Aristotelian realism *is*. Maybe I *am*
committed to it. I doubt it, though.

I do recall my reference to tropes. It wasn't the slightest
bit disdainful.

I believe in everything.

>So, properties if necessary, but not necessarily properties, as our
>great, mad, former (and now possibly dead) Prime Minister might have
>put it.

Heavens. When are we gonna get one of them metaphysician heads
of state?

Jamie
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: A note on Modal Logic that has nothing to do with Icky Sex
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:46:13 GMT

It should be made clear that the identity of the One True Set Theory
is not the issue in the argument about "quantification over
everything".  Zeleny's position makes no sense from the standpoint of
the very Cantorian set theory he professes to regard as the Truth (and
which I agree is an accurate description of part of the whole).

When we quantify, we do not quantify over a set.  The statement "for
all x, P" means that P is true no matter what x is (there may be
implicit restrictions in given disciplines; in ZFC we are, for
example, talking only about well-founded sets -- but note that
well-founded sets do NOT make up a set), not "P is true whenever x is
taken from a certain collection".  Moreover, unrestricted quantifiers
can occur in conditions which "define" sets in ZFC; if we restrict
ourselves to defining sets using conditions with quantifiers
restricted to sets, we cannot prove the existence of aleph-omega (we
are essentially working in type theory).

As Zeleny has said himself, there is no completed totality of all the
sets of ZFC; this is an Absolute Infinite totality, in Cantor's sense.
How does he square this with his insistence that there must be such a
totality (in a a higher type, apparently) to quantify over?  This
seems to arise from his belief that ZFC "has semantics" in the sense
that the intended interpretation of ZFC is a model of ZFC.  But a
model of theory T is a _set_; the intended interpretation of ZFC
describes an Absolute Infinite totality which cannot be construed as a
set! 

If we admit his classes, super-classes, and so forth, he is doing
omega-order ZFC.  He has not gained anything by this regress; I'm
looking for his model of omega-order ZFC...



-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu