HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:07:42 GMT


When mathew asks where he can get his free copy of RSAREF I fear he
is being both misleading and disingenuous.

He doesn't need one in Europe, as he well knows--RSA's patents don't
apply there and there's no ethical issue if the RSA algorithm is
programmed from scratch there.

He can't get RSAREF since it falls under the Munitions Act.

As for ripem itself, there's no reason one can't reprogram it
in Europe, to avoid export issues, and then there'd be a
compatible and legal version in both the U.S. and outside--
Voila! A "universally usable scheme" which everyone can feel
ethical about using.

The reverse isn't true for PGP since it is, by definition, currently
a violation in the U.S. even if reprogrammed from scratch.

The way around that, of course, would be for someone in the U.S.
to reprogram it using RSAREF. I understand a team is working on that.

If that is successful, then there'd also be a universal set of PGP
versions. I know it's inconvenient to have two versions, and some
might even think it silly (I do not), but it would be ethical.

Ethics is hard, sometimes, but trust me--it's worth it.

David

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: RSA Data Security Not All Bad
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:51:22 GMT


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

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

David
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
X-Quoted: 50%
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:43:48 -0500

Thus said stevens@vms.macc.wisc.edu (PAul STevens - MACC - 2-9618):
>In article <1galtnINNhn5@transfer.stratus.com>, cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes...
>
>>I went to the horse's mouth and asked some folks at PKP & RSA to comment
>>on PGP legality.  Here's their reply.  I have permission to post it.
>> 
>>Being aware of the RSA patent makes infringement willful and
>>deliberate. Under patent law, a patent holder is entitled to seek
>>triple damages and legal fees from deliberate infringers.  While the
>
>    Once again.  Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.  Who is going to do
>    something?  For the record I am going to publish a number I
[ ... ]
>    My point is that *someone* has to test this patent claim!  How 
>    can we force this to happen?  If someone does get sued are we
>    all willing to contribute to the defense or are we all talk, too? 

Whoever goes to court to test the patent claim had better darn well have
the resources and circumstances to mount a strong defense or else he'll
just get creamed and a precedent will be set in favor of PKP.  It's not
something for some random doofus to challenge without significant
backing and knowledge.  Making a frivolous violation and losing in court
does not help your cause; quite the contrary.

That was part of why Mark Riordan quietly withdrew RPEM when it was
challenged even though he didn't believe it infringed PKP's patent.  I
suppose you think him a wimp who does nothing but "talk talk talk"
because of that, but it may have been the right decision for the time.
--
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Coventry (was: Force-Feeding New Technology to Spies)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


The story that the English deliberately allowed Coventry to be bombed for
fear the Germans would learn that Enigma had been compromised is one that
is highly arguable, and is not considered true by at least one expert in
the field.  In his book "Kahn on Codes" crypto historian David Kahn says
(now here it gets approximate, because I don't have the book; I read it
a few months ago) that there was a postwar official investigation of what
happened at Coventry.  Supposedly the Enigma decrypts were ambiguous
as to the target.  In military messages they tend to use coded names
for geographical sites, as well as encrypting the messages; so even with
a perfectly good and timely decrypt you may need additional information
to know what the message means.  In the middle of a war a lot of things
can go wrong with the defense.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: tedwards@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Chosen crypto-text attack on RSA
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:04:44 GMT

In article <YSN9FVS@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> pom@anke.imsd.uni-mainz.DE (Prof. Dr. Klaus Pommerening) writes:
>Assume Alice has sent an encrypted message c, and Charles
>(the eavesdropper) has got c and wants to know the
>corresponding plaintext m. Let n be Alice's public
>modulus, e the public exponent, and d the private exponent
>(assume c < n); then m = c^d mod n.
>2. Charles gets Alice to decrypt y (or to sign y, if the same
>   keys are used for signature). He gets u = y^d mod n.
>3. Now Charles calculates 
>      tu mod n = x^{-d}*y^d mod n = x^{-d}*x^d*c^d mod n = m.
>Never sign a document that Charles presents to you!

I wonder if PGP 2.2 will have this analysis feature!

-Thomas


Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5787 alt.security.pgp:236
From: orb@cs.utexas.edu (Norman Richards)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: RSA Question (was Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 10:59:55 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu

In article <r09LrAXKBh107h@nadir.uucp> crespin@nadir.uucp (Rudy Crespin) writes:
>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

  since n=391 we can find n=p*q=17*23
  (p-1)*(q-1)=352
  you gave e=3 so my guess is d=235 since 3*235 mod 352 = 1

  133^235 mod 391 = 27 , so that is what I got
  to check, 27^3 mod 391 = 133 so all seems well.

  So, is X=27?
_______________________________________________________________________________
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:5784 alt.security.pgp:233
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:05:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> Finally, that they are permitting ripem (which, though not
> perfect is pretty good) or anything else someone wants to
> take the trouble to write from scratch using RSAREF, seems
> to me to be clear evidence that they are bending over backwards
> to provide a path to free software for non-commercial private use
> for those who wish to take the trouble.

Really?  Where can I get my free copy of RSAREF?


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:55:31 -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

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> It's also been claimed by one correspondent that a)IDEA has been 
> published and b)the above footnote exemption would mean that 
> the IDEA component of PGP wouldn't provide a basis for proceeding 
> against PGP under the Munitions Act. 

I do not think this is supportable.  What it means is that a description of 
IDEA would be exempted from the restrictions on technical data.  An 
implementation of IDEA would still be considered a defense article.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: RSA
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:09:12 GMT
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

I haven't seen these items mentioned but I'm not a math whiz so maybe
it's hidden in there somewhere.

You can get an encode/decode pair ( e and d ) by taking d*e mod
(p-1)*(q-1) = 1. This implies that the smallest value for d*e
is ((p-1)*(q-1))+1 but it's actually (((p-1)*(q-1))/2)+1. If fact, d*e 
must be some value  (((p-1)*(q-1)/2)*x)+1 where x is any integer >0
 
Also, for ANY value of n ( =p*q), there are at least nine values of m 
(the message) that will encrypt as m. I.e. E(m) = m and D(m) = m. Three 
of these are trivial, m=0, 1, and n-1. The other six allow factoring n. 
For some values of e, there are more cases but I'm not sure how easy it 
would be to get the factors knowing one of those. This brings up the 
question of whether the proceedure should watch for such cases. Only 
while signing a message would the sender be the one to discover key was 
compromised. I know it's not at all likely but it seems like it could 
cause problems.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Exporting password protection
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:58:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <BzEwLo.DB6@jabba.ess.harris.com> mvm@epg.harris.com (Matt Mahoney) writes:
>You should be able to implement password protection using a one-way
>hash function instead of encryption. [...]  I would recommend the
>MD4 or MD5 hash functions, which (as far as I know) are public
>domain, freely exportable, and haven't been broken in spite of wide use.


I'd consider using both MD2 and MD5 -- maybe as a cascade.  There's no
reason to make this fast (so MD4 isn't called for) -- and it's better to
make it slow.  The slower the code, the harder to do brute force attacks.

Note that passwords can still be guessed if they're otherwise guessable:
eg., a person's name.

I recommend password sentences.  My preference is for sentences (possibly
computer-generated) which are nonsense.  There are more nonsense sentences
than real ones and they can be strange enough to be easy to remember.

Eg., my friend Tom VanVleck coined the following MANY years ago:

	"Light bulbs are full of water."

It shouldn't be hard to generate your own patently false sentences.

-- 
-- <<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: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: LUC Public-key Encryption
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:59:42 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) in article <1992Dec11.171631.26834@linus.mitre.org>:
>
>He should not be able to patent this, since what he has done was all
>known before.

Since when did that stop anyone?
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr. Lyn R. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: RSA Question (was Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 08:55:19 CST
Organization: Radio Amateur k5qwb

johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson) writes:

> >Same number  X^3(mod, 391) = 133
> >(phi(N) is not divisible by 3) What is my number?
> >
> 27.
> 
> >I tried to figure out t, but got stumped.
> 
> t is 235.  Other larger numbers like 587 will also work.

One smaller number, 59, also works.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 
73,            internet     | lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org
Lyn Kennedy    packet radio | K5QWB @ N5LDD.#NTX.TX.US.NA
               pony express | P.O. Box 5133, Ovilla, TX, USA 75154

-------------- "We have met the enemy and he is us."  Pogo --------------
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: warlord@MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:25:48 GMT

In article <1galtnINNhn5@transfer.stratus.com> cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:

   [I have since concluded
   that I would like to get a copy of the PGP interface spec so that I could
   write a program, using RSAREF, which interoperates with PGP.  I see PGP
   as setting a kind of new standard format -- an alternative to PEM.]

   {other stuff deleted -- warlord}

There are plans in the works, pending the new RSAREF license, to do
just this!  Please be patient, as there is no need to duplicate
efforts!  At least many people are thinking the same thing, so many
people will be happy when it happens!

Enjoy!

-derek

PGP 2 key available upon request, or via AFS:
	/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/w/a/warlord/pgp-pubkey.asc


--
         Derek Atkins -- MIT '93 -- Electrical Engineering
--warlord@MIT.EDU | ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!warlord | s20069@mitvma.bitnet
      Chairman, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
           MIT Media Laboratory, Speech Research Group
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Status of DES, or "Is the DES Standard PD?"
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:59:10 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

I always assumed that the only reason the NSA could have for attempting
to suppress RSA while promoting DES would be that they've got DES
cracked, and they Know the Secret of the S-Boxes.  Recent research seems
to indicate that (1) the key is 56 bits because there's only 56 bits
worth of security in the algorithm anyway, and (2) the NSA S-boxes are
chosen to be more secure.  If they genuinely don't have the scoop on
DES, why should they promote it while suppressing RSA?
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5969 alt.security.pgp:327
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: 20 Dec 92 08:04:18 GMT
Organization: UUCP San Diego, CA

In <lj1cgbINNemn@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu> orb@cs.utexas.edu (Norman Richards) writes:
>In article <r09LrAXKBh107h@nadir.uucp> crespin@nadir.uucp (Rudy Crespin) writes:
>>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

>  since n=391 we can find n=p*q=17*23
>  (p-1)*(q-1)=352
>  you gave e=3 so my guess is d=235 since 3*235 mod 352 = 1

>  133^235 mod 391 = 27 , so that is what I got
>  to check, 27^3 mod 391 = 133 so all seems well.

>  So, is X=27?
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>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."

Yes! I still don't get how you figure out 133^235 without blowing up your PC.
Rudy

-- 
                                                      _           _
   ---   O       | Rudy Crespin                    | / \ |\ | __ / \ |\ |
   --   <^-      | crespin@nadir.uucp              | \_/ | \|    \_/ | \|
  --  -\/\       | crash!nadir!crespin             | 
  ---     \      |                                 |- No-No, it is On-On.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: LUC Public-key Encryption
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:04:51 GMT

In article <Bz98BI.BMG@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>Quoting bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) in article <1992Dec11.171631.26834@linus.mitre.org>:
>>
>>He should not be able to patent this, since what he has done was all
>>known before.
>
>Since when did that stop anyone?

	It stops them about 90% of the time.  Next time you look at a
	patent application, look for the search report (at the back).
	This gives the result of a search for prior and related art.
	In many cases documents that indicate that the application
	cannot be considered to include an inventive step are identified.
	These can disqualify the application.

	Alec Chambers
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:04:46 -0600
Organization: Blackriver Recorporations, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec18.021308.10817@ulysses.att.com>, smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.235959.1@nowhere.mil>, nobody@nowhere.mil writes:

         [Text deleted where David Sternlight expounds his belief that PGP
    is "tainted" and that to use it is unethical, regardless of local
    laws.]

>> Which is interesting, considering an entry on a PGP public key ring I
>> received recently:
>> 
>> Type bits/keyID   Date       User ID
>> pub  1024/B33E65 1992/09/24  David Sternlight <strnlght@netcom.com>
>> 
>> 
>> I guess it's "do as I say, not as I do", eh, Dave?
> 
> Ah, I love anonymous postings.  Umm -- who signed that key?  There's
> this about certificates (i.e., about the much-maligned PEM) -- there's
> a trail of evidence and authentication.
> 
> Quick -- how many people know how to generate a key with an arbitrary
> name?  I thought so...

         For that matter, look:

         Type bits/keyID   Date       User ID
         pub  1024/B33E65 1992/11/24  Jim Bidzos <jim@rsa.com>               

         So far as I know, no such public key exists. I just copied the
    sentences from Nobody's post, and twiddled them. 

         [DISCLAIMER: Again, I am not trying to make it look like Jim
    Bidzos uses PGP, or has a keypair in some PGP keyring. I am trying to
    point out that I can provide "proof" of somebody having a keypair even
    without generating such a keypair.]

> Btw -- the key might be genuine.  But an anonymous posting sure doesn't
> give me any reason to think so.

         Besides, the point is irrelevant. The key was supposedly generated
    nearly three months ago; plenty of time for a change of heart about the
    ethics of using this program. (Not that I agree with Mr. Sternlight's
    points, but I felt the original post was a low blow.)


-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5814 alt.security.pgp:256
From: kuenning@mahler.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 17 Dec 1992 20:52:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mahler

In article <1992Dec17.094354.19214@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com
(David Sternlight) writes:

> In response to Phil Karn, cryptographic software is specifically
> defined as matter that's not exportable or importable without a
> license. It is NOT the same thing as an algorithm, in the
> specific language of the regulations.

After reading numerous postings from you, I've realized that it must
be a true delight to live in such a simple world.  Do you accept
immigrants, David?
--
	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@itcorp.com   uunet!desint!geoff
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson)
Subject: Re: RSA Question (was Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality)
Summary: answer is 27
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:12:13 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.

In article <r09LrAXKBh107h@nadir.uucp> you write:
>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?
>
27.

>I tried to figure out t, but got stumped.

t is 235.  Other larger numbers like 587 will also work.
The method is explained in Rivest et al, "A Method for Obtaining Digital
Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems," Communications of the ACM,
vol 21, no 2, Feb 1978, pp120ff.
Section VII d and VIII are the most relevant.

Now, that we have gcd(PHI(n), d) = 1, e must be calculated.  This is
done by calculating a series x0, x1, .... with x0 = PHI(n), and x1 = d
(ie 3), and x(i+1) = x(i-1) (mod xi).  For each xi, a pair of numbers ai and
bi must be found that satisfy:
ai*x0 + bi*x1 = xi.
As far as I know the most efficient way to solve this is to try different
values for a until you get a positive integer for b.
My numbers:
    x   a   b
0  352  1   0
1    3  0   1
2    1 -2  235

>Thanks again,

I hope this helps.

>Rudy Crespin
>
>--
>                                                      _           _
>   ---   O       | Rudy Crespin                    | / \ |\ | __ / \ |\ |
>   --   <^-      | crespin@nadir.uucp              | \_/ | \|    \_/ | \|
>  --  -\/\       | crash!nadir!crespin             |
>  ---     \      |                                 |- No-No, it is On-On.

--
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
; Mark Johnson             ; msdos has 6 types of RAM - dos ram,
; My views are my own and  ; upper memory, high memory, extended memory,
; nobody else's.           ; expanded memory, and video ram.
;                          ; YUCKKK!!!!!!!!!!!
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.crypt