HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 08:08:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.043202.29306@ncar.ucar.edu> prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann) writes:
>Starting sci.crypt.research sounds good to me.

I'd vote for this too.

>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.

I don't think so.  The only way would be for someone to 'moderate' it and
put a filter on the group.  Something along these lines would be great but
I'm not sure if it would be necessary on a 'research' group.  The big wars
going on are mostly just the result of crap that has little to do with the
technology/theory/etc. of cryptology and much more to do with government,
law, etc. (which would probably continue on sci.crypt but which we could
easily ignore :-).

Thanks,
	John
	johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones
Organization: Little to None
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:45:17 GMT

>Another is that Bell Labs developed a truly remarkable (given the
>technology of the day) secure speech system that really was secure. It
>used voice coders (vocoders) and one-time-pads generated by recording
>the electrical noise from mercury-vapor rectifier tubes on phonograph
>records.  After two pressings were made, the masters were destroyed.
>One copy was kept in the US and the other was shipped to London under
>the careful watch of a Marine guard. After being used once to protect
>a Roosevelt-Churchill conversation, each pair of discs was destroyed.

How did they keep them in sync?
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: s3176997@techst02.technion.ac.il (Daphne Rosenhouse)
Subject: ARJ decryption, GWBASIC
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:50:24 GMT

hi
A friend of mine used ARJ (-vva) to backup his whole HD, and also set a PW (-g)
he cant remember the pw, his hd has crashed, and one of the files contains 
valuable info.
is there any relatively quick method to decrypt it ?
i have progs that does so to old zip encryption, and is pretty quick on the 386dx
have such thing for ARJ ???

p.s. i saw ppl talking about the GWBASIC 'encryption'
i have a tiny com-file that can 'decrypt' the basic files
if anyone needs it, mail me

bye
From: mrr@cl.msu.edu (Mark Riordan)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: alt.security.ripem
Summary: Where, oh where, is this newsgroup?
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:46:54 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: scss3.cl.msu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

I've heard it said more than once that there is a newsgroup named
alt.security.ripem.  However, no such group has reached my site or
any sites I've probed via Gopher.  I've been hearing these rumors
now for a while; any ideas on what's up?

Thanks.

(The reasons for my interest in alt.security.ripem should be obvious.)

Mark R.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- encrypt/decrypt devices on Wireless phones
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:06:37 GMT

rwirthli@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ralph Wirthlin) writes:

>bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:

>>[son listening] 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. 

This hits close to home.. but for different reasons.  My ex-wife calls
me and threatens various things, and the only way that I can tape
record the phone call is by talking to her on the cordless and
simultaneously taping the call from my scanner.

But the good news is that I recently loaned my scanner to my son,
who lives at her house..... did I mention that *she* has a cordless
phone too?

>It may not be right, but it certainly is legal as long as the contents
>of that conversation are not disclosed.  Cellular conversations are 

Q: Is this really true?  
A: No.  Part 15 devices enjoy this much privacy:

(end privacy)

Besides, if it ever comes up (he has chosen to not mention to her that
he can listen to her phone calls), I think that there are many more
devious people who are listening... she should worry about them, not
this little guy.

Dave
-- 
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.   Amateur Radio Callsign KZ1O
Project Leader, OCR products            kz1o@n0ary.#noca.ca.na
Internet: dbushong@wang.com
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:6262 alt.security.pgp:444
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:48:14 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec29.004343.20852@unislc.uucp>, erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
> Vesselin Bontchev (bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de) wrote:
> 
> : 2) If you have indeed commited a crime when using PGP (which I
> : sincerely doubt), then the fact that you were not aware of the law
> : does not make you innocent.
> 
> True, but the fact that someone discontinues any illegal act when they
> discover that it *is* illegal (without threat or fear of discovery) may
> be used as an affirmative defense to prosecution in some jurisdictions.
> 
> Not that I consider using PGP to be an illegal act...

Kinda like sneaking to the stairwell behind the bar, and whipping out the
ole on hitter, taking a few tokes of some nice gold, getting wasted and
going back in to watch the band...

> -- 
> Ed Carp			erc@apple.com, erc@saturn.upl.com	801/538-0177
> 
> Who and what would you be if you went beyond your deepest fears?

Free and out of debt!

-Garrett


Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Opinions on RSA's RC2 and RC4?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:30:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.202631.25004@gallant.apple.com> consensus@aol.com (Christopher Allen) writes:
>Does anyone have an opinion on the technical merits of RC2 and RC4?

Yeah. If NSA will let them out of the country, then they can't be very
good at all. It's as simple as that.

I understand that for export NSA limits the key sizes for RC2 and RC4
to about 40 bits (although NSA doesn't want this fact generally
known). It should be apparent that keys this small can be easily
cracked by brute force on modern workstations, no matter how good the
algorithms themselves might be with adequately large keys.

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Enigma, ULTRA
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:22:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.201639.12700@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

	 Read "Turing - The Enigma" for a biography of Turing and a general
   discussion of life and work at Bletchley Park.  "Ultra Goes to War"
   and "The Ultra Secret" discuss the military implications.  If you can
   find it, "Modern Machine Cryptography" describes exactly how the work
   at Bletchley Park was done, with photos of the gear and BASIC programs
   so you can simulate a bombe.  I've heard that a bombe has been shown
   at the Smithsonian (it may be in storage at the moment; they have far
   more stuff than museum space).

Also check out the new book "The Ultra-Magic Deals and the Most
Secret Special Relationship, 1940-1946" by Bradley F. Smith.
It's about the US-UK cooperation and its postwar implications.
I just got this book, haven't read it yet but it looks quite good.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Reply-To: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Organization: Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:21:01 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

> You seem not to be listening here. The issue of the legality of PGP is
> not a patent one but a Munitions Act one, since the U.S. copies were
> brought in from outside the U.S. without a Munitions Act import
> license, and since PGP includes IDEA, it requires one.

I am listening very carefully here... It was -you- who said that PGP
cannot be imported in the USA due to the patent infringement issues.
In the same message you admited that the ITAR restrictions issue is
debatable. Maybe you should read your own messages more carefully.

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
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
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 00:33:59 GMT


I believe Arthur Rubin to be in error when he argues that if it's
public domain technical data it's ok, and so PGP is ok.

First of all the language of the act I posted makes clear that
software, algorithms, flow charts are all controlled matter in the
cryptographic area. Thus the sophistries posted by some that
algorithms aren't covered, or that software is really algorithms and
thus not covered, or that they are exempt as technical data, or that
technical data is not covered are all refuted by the specific language
of the law, and those who made the above assertions are revealed to
have been making it up as they go along, and presenting their
fantasies as facts in an attempt to sustain an unsustainable position.
One of the problems with bright people is that they often "make up"
facts to bolster their arguments.

Second, something doesn't become public domain simply because it's
published. Instead of asserting, I suggest Rubin post the specific
language of the law about 'public domain' as I have about software.

Finally, without having read the Scientific American article I don't
know if they violated the law or not, but this thread isn't about
Scientific American, so I consider that a side show better treated
as a separate matter for those interested.

David
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:36:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <bontchev.725110231@fbihh>, bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev) writes:
> I somehow do not share the hope expressed here by some people that the
> new US administration will lift the restrictions on cryto software...

They might -- Gore is a fan of networking -- but they have other priorities.
If they do, it will take a few years, I'd guess.

> Besides, could somebody check whether PKP's patents are renewable? If
> they are, we might have to wait a long time... :-)

Patents aren't renewable.  The RSA patent, which is at issue here, expires
in 2000.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.sources
From: vax@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Vax)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,misc.books.technical
Subject: help - recommend a crypto book.
Keywords: crypto book code cipher DES etc
Date: 23 Dec 92 05:16:59 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Could someone recommend a book about cryptograhy (specifically computer
related) to someone of the following qualifications?
Much computer experience in hardware and software, and the standard E.E. level
math experience (DiffEq and Multivariate Calc) but little statistical or
number theory experience.  Somewhat facile with boolean algebra.
The book can be somewhat above this level, but nothing too simple
(Caesar cyphers, etc).  Something describing DES would be interesting.
Thanks in advance.
-- 
Protect our endangered bandwidth - reply by email.  NO BIG SIGS!
VaX#n8 vax@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu - finger for more info if you even care.
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RIPEM vs. PGP
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 11:49:50 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <1992Dec16.115438@kuttner.sfc.sony.com> 
(Eric Weaver) writes: 

> How about someone "out there" making a RIPEM-compatible system  rather in
> the spirit of PGP, so we can get about exchanging our private mail, rather
> than grousing about the legality of PGP?  I shall be happy to send U.S. $20

    Why not wait (or not) until the RSA patent expires and join the
    rest of the world with PGP? The IDEA is crypto tech that everybody
    understands and doesn't have any secret design parameters. It's
    also a heck of a lot easier to implement than the DES.

    Best of the season,
                            Marc

---
 Marc Thibault        |  Automation Architect        |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:11:10 GMT

In article <scottj-301292083214@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
:> But yes, a moderated sci.crypt.serious group would be a good idea, with
:> the moderator pushing discussions, reiterations, flames etx into
:> sci.crypt. (Not that I'd want to be moderator- are there volunteers?)
:
:Of course not!  No volunteers, just grousers.

I volunteer, but I am likely to be more strict than some would like.

--
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,alt.security.ripem
From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:16:38 GMT

Steve,

Thanks for your response, it really cheered me up.  And the Pastor
Martin Neimoller quotes is one of my favorites and I wear it on my jean
jacket.

-Erik
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp,alt.security.ripem
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:30:54 GMT

In article <QHZVBBVV@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
>At the risk of getting myself into deep **** (choose the word of your
>choice), I must say, that I see the import and installation of PGP on my
>machines and my usage of it as a form of protest.

As long as you accept that the current laws would likely (are?)
interpretted that what you are doing is an illegal protest, then
that's fine.  You are willing to place your neck/pocketbook on
the line for your beliefs -- that's a very good thing.  However,
if you don't believe that what you're doing *is* illegal, then
you should research it further before taking such a risk.  Just
because you feel that the law is wrong, or that the PTO is wrong,
does *not* mean that a judge  and jury would agree with you.

Plus, if you are using your school's machines, then are they
in agreement with your protest?  Are they willing to place
their entire school on the line for your protest?

Don't misread me.  I'm neither saying you should or should not
take such a protest.  I am saying that when you're going to
knowingly break the law you just need to be sure you know what
you're doing.  Civil disobedience is something which many of us
need to do -- but only when we are aware of the results of our
actions.

>
>By privately maintaining floppies with source code as well as installing
>PGP on my machine, I am guaranteeing my ability to securely use my
>computer without pryihng eyes reading my files.  Also, I am protesting
>the idea that software/algorithms are patentable.  Modern Computer
>technology is changing way too rapidly for a 17 year lock on a market.

If you want to keep people from prying at your computer files,
then go out and buy any of a number of encryption/protection
programs; or use a public domain one -- that does not infringe a
patent.  For sake of discussion, assume that the patent IS valid
(btw, the law says that once a patent is issued, that it must be
assumed to be valid in a court, you would have to prove it is not)
and tell a judge that you infringed so that you could keep
prying eyes from reading your files.  Do you think any judge would
condone breaking the law for that reason?

I agree that there are major problems with the patent system --
specifically with fast moving technology.  I'm on the IEEE
Intellectual Property Committee and we've been working up legislation
to attack that general problem (software is not the only problem).
My point is:  If you feel that there's something wrong with the system,
I think we would all be better off if the system were fixed rather than
just having protests.  Try to find ways to suggest constructive corrections
to the system.  



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:24:15 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec22.003359.1777@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>I believe Arthur Rubin to be in error when he argues that if it's
>public domain technical data it's ok, and so PGP is ok.

The law authorizing ITAR (which is not the Munications Act) specifies that
"public domain" technical data about munitions which has already been
published is exportable.  (The dimensions of secret aircraft, for
instance.)  A related law specifies that something "public domain" (defined
as generally available in the US) cannot be restricted material.  Whether
that law covers software for the purposes of ITAR is, indeed, unclear.

I'll ask my sources for details, and post (if this thread hasn't died by
then), probably around 5 January.

>First of all the language of the act I posted makes clear that

You were quoting regulations, not the law itself.  Regulations are
legally binding if they are consistent with the law, but the law did not
define software.  The question is whether the definition of
"restricted" software in a related law applies in the absence specific
language will get to the courts eventually, unless one of the laws is
repealed.

>Finally, without having read the Scientific American article I don't
>know if they violated the law or not, but this thread isn't about
>Scientific American, so I consider that a side show better treated
>as a separate matter for those interested.

In terms of ITAR, the thread IS about Scientific American.  If the
algorithm description in Scientific American is sufficient to produce the
restricted parts of PGP, then ONLY Scientific American (or R) could be
prosecuted under ITAR.
--
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.
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 28 Dec 1992 20:49:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec19.050329.29596@qualcomm.com> karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>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)?


I am not a lawyer -- however, I believe these become subject to the RSA
patent -- and, for that matter, subject to ITAR rules -- only if those
equations and any machinery for computing them are used for communicating a
secret.  (For other claims, you'd have to read the patent and for other
prohibited behavior you'd have to read the ITAR.)  If the way they are used
doesn't help you communicate a secret, I doubt either of these (mutually
antagonistic) entities cares.


It is clear that I am totally free to verify the identity

	x = x^(1+k*phi(N)) mod N

with examples, including the two equations you gave, using any size
numbers, if I'm doing it as a class exercise in a number theory class.
-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
From: gibson@purina.berkeley.edu (richard Gibson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Need reference for weighted checksum code
Date: 21 Dec 1992 19:29:11 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: purina.berkeley.edu

Howdy!

Someone recently brought me a problem concerning an error-detecting weighted
code with a modulo 11 checksum that she's using in her business. 

In short, a bunch of items are given 10 digit identification numbers. 
Let N_i denote the ith digit of the number.
Each number has the property that SUM(A_i * N_i) is congruent to 0 mod 11,
where {A_i} are weights as follows: {1, 2, 5, 3, 6, 4, 8, 7, 10, 9}.

The obvious advantages of this identification system are that no single
digit errors in a valid number and no single transposition of digits in
a valid number will produce another valid number. 

Question: What is the advantage of the weights being mixed up like that?
(i.e. why isn't A_i just set equal to i?)
References about this particular system would be the most appreciated because 
I know this weighting must have been written about somewhere. I just can't
find it.

Thanks,

Richard 
Gibson@math.ucb.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt