HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA questions
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:18:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: transarc.YfATb1f0Bwx2N93K0Z
	<6gByVB5w164w@cellar.org>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

tsa@cellar.org (The Silent Assassin) writes:
> > RSA works like this:
> > 1. Pick two large primes p and q (with certain extra properties). Let N=pq.
> 
> What are the extra properties, and how large should they be to be reasonable
> secure?

According to RSA's own info, the primes p and q were once recommended
to be "strong" primes (a prime number p is "strong" if there are no
large prime factors of (p-1) and (p+1)), but they claim that recent
advances in factoring techniques have removed the advantages of using
strong primes.  See the most excellent FAQ document, available for
anonymous FTP from rsa.com, for mre details.

> > 2. Pick random exponent s.  The pair (N, s) will be the public key.
> > 3. Compute secret key t, so that st = 1 mod (p-1)(q-1).  You can do
> >    this efficiently if you know p and q, but it is intractable otherwise.
> 
> Huh?  1 mod x =x, correct?  That is. modulus is the remainder of integer
> division, and when you take 1 and mod it, you will always have a remainder
> equal to your original.

This confused me the first dozen times I read it, too.

The idea is not to compute t such that st = (1 mod (p-1)(q-1)).  You
compute t such that st = 1, when taken mod (p-1)(q-1).  That's the
definition of a multiplicative inverse.  The problem in the
description is simply one of unclear terminology.

--Pat.
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: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:34:01 GMT

In article <PHR.92Dec18101252@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
> Not everyone shares Sternlight's opinion that "RSA has patents on a wonderful
> invention and they are entitled to the fruits of their work."  See
> pesp. the FSF's position on algorithmic patents for an opposing view.
>
>I think you're thinking of the position paper "Against Software Patents",
>from the League for Programming Freedom, not the FSF.  Write to
>league@uunet.uu.net if you want a copy.


Though Rubin is perfectly correct, the LPF position is not only a
minority one, but flies in the face of the law. It's not a relevant
argument in the main substance of this discussion, but rather a
passing point. It carries as much weight with respect to the issues
we're discussing as the position that phone service should be free
would in a discussion of why it's a bad idea not to pay your phone
bill.

David
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5641 comp.org.eff.talk:7621 alt.privacy:2600 talk.politics.guns:25158
From: langley@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Randolph Langley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Risks of Using PGP 2.0
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:22:39 GMT
	<DLB.92Dec1113624@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
Followup-To: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Distribution: inet
Organization: FSU Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
In-reply-to: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com's message of 1 Dec 92 16:36:24 GMT




   A conclusion with which, despite my previous post, I would agree.
   Please keep us informed about this.  I would think it a violation of
   the treaty governing navigation on the high seas, but I don't know who
   would complain except the country under which the ship was registered.
   Do you know the country of registry?


Well, if it is Panama, then I bet that they won't say anything.

rdl
--


Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5905 alt.security.pgp:303
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:01:56 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec18.094613.18728@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> Steven Bellovin calls attention to the anonymous sleaze who posted
> an old key I used for PGP before I found it was illegal in the U.S.
> I don't use it, and haven't except for generating the key. Note
> that the date of the key is September 24, 1992, well before I discovered
> that PGP is illegal here.

Doesn't matter. You committed a crime and you should be prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law.

-Garrett
From: bartjan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Bartjan Wattel)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Multiple-round DES
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:25:43 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Hi,

This question sort of belongs to my other question(s) in "Enlarging key size
of the DES".

Does anybody know publications about multiple-round DES and/or implementations
of it ?

If someone has other interesting info about multiple-round DES, all information
is welcome !!

Thanks in advance,

Bartjan Wattel at Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
(Email: bartjan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    You may be insane, but you're not crazy.
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5679 alt.society.civil-liberty:6900
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Limits on the Use of Cryptography?
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) in article <Bz886x.Jw5@ddsw1.mcs.com>:
>In article <1992Dec10.182022.9173@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>
>>Iain McCord raises the possibiity that the police will "plant" an
>>encrypted file, or worse, plant an incriminating encrypted file of 
>>their own design.
>
>... if the keys are not compromised you can, with certainty,
>prove whether or not it was written by the individual in question.

...but if they're planting stuff on your very own hard disk, your keys
probably are compromised.
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Oh hell, here we go again!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:49:51 GMT


It's worth mentioning that some of us who use threaded newsreaders
such as trn don't realize how annoying excessive cross-posting is
to others, particularly if we have both the substantive groups
and the irrelevant ones in our active base.

It's more a matter of forming the correct habits than deliberate
offense in most cases. I'm just getting into the habit of checking
the headers when responding to a message, and I'm far from perfect
at it as, I assume, are many others.

Maybe the newsreader software writers should add an extra, optional
question to the dialogue, asking if the writer of a reply wants
to send it to ..... newsgroups, and giving him a chance to correct
the address list.

Or maybe trn and other groups have such a feature, and I just haven't
found it yet.

David
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5934 alt.security.pgp:312
From: uni@acs.bu.edu (Shaen Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: PGP2.1 Mac availability?
Keywords: Speeding is next to divinity
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:01:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Is 2.1 mac available yet?

I assume not as the mac release of 2.0 made major notes on both sci.crypt
and security.pgp

let me know.

I would also be interested in comments on the pax system...

uni



-- 
uni@acs.bu.edu  ->  Public Keys by finger and/or request
Soverignty is the sign of a Brutal Past.
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5629 comp.org.eff.talk:7606
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: drug dealers on the high seas (was Risks of Using PGP 2.0)
Summary: Not made legal != criminal!
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:54:33 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <10DEC199213473080@pavo.concordia.ca>, se_schn@pavo.concordia.ca (Ranfry) writes:

> 	Actually, it IS a crime to transport drugs anywhere in the world.  There
> is NOT country that has made it legal.  

Are you suggesting that you think that if something has not been made
legal, it is therefore a crime?

With an attitude like that loose in the world, it's no wonder that
earthside individual freedom is on its last legs.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:30:42 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Dec17.002347.19216@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>In any case, the goverment may choose not to prosecute model makers
>but that's no assurance they won't prosecute crypto issues,
>particularly given their concern about those issues and the much
>greater damage secure cryptography can do to intelligence collection,
>compared to the damage from airplane models.
	The only intelligence collection damaged by secure cryptography
	in the hands of citizens is intelligence collection that shouldn't
	be done.  You make it seem as if other governments would be deterred.
	Of course not.  Governments, which are the "legitimate" targets of
	our spies can use secure cryptography with ABSOLUTELY NO FEAR OF
	PROSECUTION.  It is the unfortunate citizens of our incipient
	police state that have to fear prosecution.  The war being conducted
	these days is not against foreign powers but against the citizens.
	Anything that gives the citizen an edge in that war is GOOD.
	


						smg
From: koc@rize.ECE.ORST.EDU (Cetin Kaya Koc)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:16:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: flop.1grc92INNb6i
Organization: College of Engineering, Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: rize.ece.orst.edu

In article <226XVB4w164w@k5qwb.lonestar.org> lrk@k5qwb.lonestar.org (Mr.  
Lyn R. Kennedy) writes:
> 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 

E(m) = m for as many as k messages where
   k = [1+gcd(e-1,p-1)]*[1+gcd(e-1,q-1)].

The smallest value k=[1+2]*[1+2]=9 as pointed out. This is because
   gcd(e-1,p-1) >= 2 
since p and e are odd numbers; p is prime, and gcd(e,(p-1)(q-1))=1 and
thus e is odd.

Thus, you want gcd(e-1,p-1) and gcd(e-1,q-1) as small as possible.

Ref: Blakley & Borosh. Comp. & Math. with App. 5:169-178, 1979.
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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:33 GMT


John de Armond defends Miller's claim that Bidzos is threatening
people with prosecution under the Munitions Act. (Whew. That sentence
reads like the plot of a daytime serial. And what about Naomi?)

But Bidzos never threatened anyone with that. In a couple of private
messages discussing the subject (and in my case, prefaced by
"I understand you are interested in PGP") so there was no threat,
he merely mentioned, with quotes from the Act and the history
of how PGP got here, that PGP was a violation. I did not
read that as a threat, veiled or otherwise, but as information.
He never said, "and I'm going to tell the Feds" and being an
adult in full possession of my faculties I know the difference
between Bidzos and the Feds.

As one who has been following this discussion only for the past
month or two, it seems to me that some here have a chip on their
shoulder about RSA/Bidzos entirely unwarranted by any facts.
They do own a perfectly good U.S. patent, and until it's
overthrown, have every right to exploit it for their benefit
and protect it.

Moreover, others have had over 15 years to try to overthrow it,
and have not succeeded. Thus current arguments about it's not
being valid seem to me to be the petulant wailing of children
who have been refused free toys. Those with a strong economic
interest in challenging it (IBM, Apple, etc.) and plenty
of money so to do have not done so successfully but rather,
have licensed it from RSA. That, to me, tells the story,
since such firms have never been reluctant to refuse to pay
royalties when they thought a patent was weak.

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. The RSAREF agreement
permits modifying it, so any lack of features in an RSAREF-based
program is the fault of the developer, not RSA.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: [sci.crypt, et al.] Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:11:03 GMT
Organization: Beckman Instruments, Inc.

In <1992Dec18.201426.15779@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:


>I don't know why Carl Kadie reposted this message, but feel it
>necessary to repost my response since perhaps his repost means
>the original message didn't make it here:

>Prof. Eben Moglen writes:

>(law professor's opinion about "realities of situation" omitted)

>Note that in no place does Moglen say use of PGP2.0 in the US. is legal. In no
>place does he say one isn't violating the Munitions Act. He even concedes it's
>a "civil WRONG" (emphasis added). What he says is that he thinks one is
>unlikely to be prosecuted/sued.

Not really.  It seems to me what he said was that the patent is clearly not
legal; but that PGP probably infringes on the patent.  (Also, that
prosecution is unlikely, but the primary reason it is unlikely that it
would fail.)

>This means the ethical position is still unchanged in this discussion. Using
>PGP in the US. is wronging the patent holders and violating the Munitions Act.

It appears not to be violating the Munitions Act, only the regulations. 
The regulations are (in his specific opinion) contrary to the law.  If you
think the patent is valid, then ethically you cannot use PGP.

...

>Next he says "a lawyer certainly might advise her client to wait for the
>patent-holder to assert his rights directly. When PKP sends you a personal
>letter claiming that you are infringing its patent, and asking you to take out
>a license, you can decide what you want to do about it."

>Right. First, that seems to me to be ethically analogous to saying commit a
>crime, and if the police catch you, then you can decide what you want to do
>about it. 

You said this already.  The only way to test a patent that you think is
invalid is to infringe and wait to be sued.  (Well, this is another way,
but it costs $2,000 - $10,000 filing fees in addition to legal costs.)

...

>My position is clear. RSA has patents on a wonderful invention and they are
>entitled to the fruits of their work. To cheat them of those fruits is wrong,
>regardless of the legal situation outside the US., or whether one will get
>caught or not.

Fine.  Don't use PGP.

--
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: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Spies using PGP
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:32:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Dec14.054304.1311@fasttech.com>, zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
> I'm not really a student of bureaucracy but I'll suggest that Not Invented
> Here would be a bigger obstacle keeping an agency from adopting PGP than any
> weaknesses in it.

Nope.  With something like a cryptosystem, the very fact that it's wide-
spread makes it undesirable for really sensitive messages.  PGP, if
widespread -- and for that matter, DES right now -- are important targets
for NSA et al. simply because they could recover a lot of traffic given
a general solution methodology.

> There is a general consensus that real spooks disparage the
> use of factoring based cryptosystems

Realy?  From everything I've heard, the opposite is true, especially if
the numbers are large enough.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Cryptographic copy protection
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:05:23 GMT

   >The point of entry I'm using is the fact that software is interactive.
   >A single use of a piece of software doesn't reveal all of its intricacies 
   >(unlike a musical number or a novel).  We can therefore hope to force
   >a contact with a host machine H during each unique run of the program,
   >enabling us to insist upon payment.
	[....]
   >The key to success is "cryptographically strong code shuffling" which
   >gives a cryptographic guarantee against disassembly, or more precisely,

In article <Byz911.2Lo@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

	[ much discussion on whether anyone would *want* pay-per-view
	software, ways to break implementations, ways that protection
	makes use of the software annoying at best, etc.]
   This description sounds suspiciously like many MS-DOS viruses.  I suspect
   that it will be equally popular.
   If the CPU can execute it, it can be disassembled.

   ....
   So who says the OS lets the application do self-modifying code?  Or
   read its own code?  And the debug monitor can disable the checking code 
   when the program enters the "contact host & verify" routine, and put it 

You can *always* build self-modifying code -- use an interpreter,
and include the real program as data -- as long as performance
isn't too critical.  If you only need a couple of MIPS of CPU,
and you've got a RISC or 486/50 or DSP processor, you can write
the program as p-code or LISP or (shudder) BASIC or Forth,
or roll your own interpretive system which is more amenable to
running scrambled.  Still don't know if you can solve the problem,
but at least you've got another tool.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# Nov 12 - Anniversary of Indonesian massacre in East Timor, 1991
# Indonesia first invaded in 1975, and about 1/3 of the people have been killed.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: an3596@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Legal Stuff!
X-Anonymously-To: sci.crypt
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:27:14 GMT

Hi, just wanted to mention a few points.  Someone mentioned 
that PGP was not legal in the US but okay to use elsewhere.

One person even mentioned that using PGP in the US was doing 
wrong against the pantent holders, but implied that doing so
outside the US wasn't.   

My response to these points.  

1) US patent law does NOT extend beyond US borders, right or
wrong, that is international law.  

2) While it is unlawful, technicaly speaking, to use PGP 
outside the US it is still wrongdoing against the patent 
holders, since by using a product that uses their patents 
without paying them for the liscence then they are losing out
on money that they would have gotten if the patents were 
respected.

3) There as been talk about PGP being, or not being a standard,
well, that may or may not be the truth, but it certainly is 
being spread around much.  I believe that the reason for this is
twofold.  a) A very good interface, b) because it is available.

4) There's been talk about RIPEM, about how it is legal to use
it, etc.  One question, if so, why is the distribution being
restricted?  I would like an honest and full answer to that 
one.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: poole@chsun.chuug.ch (Simon Poole)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standa
Organization: CHUUG Swiss Unix Systems Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:11:51 GMT

robert heuman (robert.heuman@rose.com) wrote:

...

: Answer: Switzerland has chosen to stay out of the EEC. 

There has been no vote on the above, nor have even any negotiations
taken place. However on the 6th of December Switzerland did vote
no to participating in the joint market contract between the EEC 
and the EFTA countries.

-- 
CHUUG/EUnet Switzerland				Simon Poole
Zweierstrasse 35	Tel: +41 1 291 45 80	poole@eunet.ch
CH-8004 Zuerich		Fax: +41 1 291 46 42	S=poole;P=EUnet;A=EUnet;C=CH
From: tsa@cellar.org (The Silent Assassin)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA questions
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:06:16 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

> 
>     I read the article in popular mechanics and have a few questions
>     about how RSA works.  You take the ASCII value of the number,
>     raise it to an arbitrary high power, and mod it by the public key,
>     correct?  But how do you decrypt it?
> 
> The message "x" is just a number, not an ascii value.
> 
> RSA works like this:
> 1. Pick two large primes p and q (with certain extra properties). Let N=pq.

What are the extra properties, and how large should they be to be reasonable
secure?

> 2. Pick random exponent s.  The pair (N, s) will be the public key.
> 3. Compute secret key t, so that st = 1 mod (p-1)(q-1).  You can do
>    this efficiently if you know p and q, but it is intractable otherwise.

Huh?  1 mod x =x, correct?  That is. modulus is the remainder of integer
division, and when you take 1 and mod it, you will always have a remainder
equal to your original.   

> 4. To encrypt: E(x) = x^s mod N.
> 5. To decrypt: D(y) = y^t mod N.
> 
> From number theory, it turns out that x^st mod N is just x.
> (This is because st = 1 mod phi(N), where phi(N) is the Euler
> totient function, equal to (p-1)(q-1) when N=pq.)
> 
> Thus, D(E(x)) = x.


I finally discovered, at the age of 21, what all of my friends had found out
at 12 or 13-that your parents are just as fucked-up and wierd as everyone
else.  Politically Correct:  Socially, Politcally, and Environmentally
concious to the point of nausea.  tsa%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: usviking@slepnir.linet.org (usviking)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:06:23 GMT
Organization: Society for the Elimination of Forgetfulness and... umm...

boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:

> The DES algorithm is published in a FIPS PUB, which you can get from
> the government printing office.  And the GPO will send it anywhere,

FIPS PUB 46-1, "Data Encryption Standard" should be the one you're
talking about. I believe the NTIS stocks FIPS documents. You can reach
them at (703) 487-4650 or National Technical Information Service / 5285
Port Royal Road / Springfield VA 22161.

-- [TANSTAAFL] --- USViking@slepnir.linet.org --- 1:107/236.1 Fight-O-Net ---
"...and view the ritual from within the silken tunnel that they spin." -Phish
JR / POB 179 / Greenlawn NY 11740 USA        C.I.A., Weather Control Division
Newsgroups: sci.crypt