HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bx017@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michel Aubin)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: PGP Version 2.0
Date: 24 Dec 1992 05:19:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hello...
I want have a information for PGP version 2.0 Program...
 
How doing for erase the first line and the last line..
 
 ---------BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----------
and
----------END PGP MESSAGE---------------

when i create a crypt text....????

I waiting your answer... Thanks...
 
Bye... 

					Michel Aubin
-- 
My Fidonet Adress is -=> 1:240/507  (Quebec City)
*************************************************
Internet adress is...-=> bx017@po.cwru.edu
*************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Exporting password protection
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:05:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.030202.13922@meiko.com> philip@meiko.com (Philip Gladstone) writes:
>Is there a published description of these algorithms anywhere?
(referring to RC2 and RC4)

No, as far as I know. I read something from RSADSI a few weeks ago
that says RC2 and RC4 are single-key ciphers proprietary to RSADSI,
and that "to maintain their special export status" their designs will
not be released.

See if *you* can figure out what this means.

Phil


Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
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: 23 Dec 92 22:11:57 GMT

uri@watson.ibm.com () writes:

> I have to disappoint you: the final RSAREF license makes it clear,
> that in order to access it in any way other than the published
> interface, you need a prior permission from PKP. And since
> the set of published interfaces is too poor, PGP can't
> be rewritten to use it, nor any decent program (SORRY, Mark! :-). 
> Also, taking into account the fact, that the word "PGP" causes 
> PKP react like a bull seeing red - I don't think it's likely 
> PKP allows such a "modification"...

Uhm, it seem that I am misunderstanding the word "interface"...
Doesn't it mean just the names of the routines provided to the main
program, together with the names and the numbers of their parameters?
If it is so, then the restriction not to change it is very reasonable
- in this way they make sure that the modified RSAREF still stays
compatible with the already written programs... And you can rewrite
anything else, add new functions, speed up the existing ones, etc.
Isn't it so? What does the word "interface" mean in this context?

> Well, of course PKP patent will expire in a few years (:-).

Still quite a lot - seven...

> It's worth to thanks Mark for his outstanding work, and to ask him
> to upgrade RIPEM.  Actually, some of the desired changes are under
> consideration, so if y'all folks can convince him, that it's OK to
> use some code from  PGP  (key management, message body compression
> and such) - we might indeed come up with compatibility. I might do

Well, he doesn't need to get the compression code from PGP... The
compression code in PGP is mainly from Info-ZIP, which is freely
available and not subject to export/import restrictions even in the
USA...

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
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:6279 news.groups:24970
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,news.groups
Subject: Oh dear, what a hornets' nest (was: sci.crypt.research)
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:00:24 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

The call for the creation of a (possibly) moderated sci.crypt.research
group seems to have stirred a real hornets' nest. And this is during
the Crhistmas break - I wonder what will happen when everybody returns
from their vacations?

Anyway, I have the feeling that _one_ reason this has caused so much
hot feelings is that people are afraid of being censored.

I know that _some_ people are in favour of making sci.crypt moderated,
and, yes, that would be some sort of censorship.

_BUT_

these people seem to be in a very small minority.

The actual proposition is something completely different: 

to create a *new* group for technical/scientific discussions about
cryptography, and to leave sci.crypt _as it is_.

Please note that this will not censor anyone. Sci.crypt will stay as it
is, and the discussion can continue just as before.

It's not even about building ivory towers, as somebody insinuated.
Even if a new group is moderated, and the moderator refuses to post
anything but technical articles, there'll still be sci.crypt, and most
of the "researchers" will probably still read it. If they don't want
to read it - well, they can unsubscribe even today, can't they, and
take their traffic to email. IMHO it's better to have the people who
can't cope with the volume of sci.crypt posting to a separate
newsgroup than to lose them altogether.

So there's no need to be so upset about things. If the new group is
created, and you don't like it, you can just go on posting to
sci.crypt. 

NOTE: I am *not* involved in any way with the proposal to create
sci.cryt.research (or whatever it should be called). The only thing
I've done is to express my support for the idea.

I have *no* interest in censoring anyone. In fact, I could manage
without the new group (but it would sure be more convenient if the
traffic would be sorted into different channels according to topic). 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: PGP is dope
Organization: Little to None
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:44:33 GMT

>My guess would be that using PGP is similar to smoking pot.

Then it must be alright, as long as we don't inhale.
-- 
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,alt.security.pgp
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: 24 Dec 92 14:21:23 GMT

uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,) writes:

> 	2) Permission to call four internal routines from the
> 	   library "rsaref.a" (routines, which perform RSA
> 	   algorithm).

Why the library? Doesn't RSAREF come in source? (Now, isn't it nice
that C doesn't have local routines? :-) Hmm, they might have declared
some of the routines static...)

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: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: DES, PKP
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:58:03 GMT

dee@skidrow.pa.dec.com ("Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)") writes:

>. . .  PKP has issued the following RFC . . .

>Network Working Group                                         R. Fougner
>Request for Comments: 1170                           Public Key Partners
>                                                            January 1991
>                   Public Key Standards and Licenses

 . . . [ document says it's an official statement from PKP ] . . .

>   . . .  We assure the
>   interested parties that Public Key Partners will comply with all of
>   the policies of ANSI and the IEEE concerning the availability of
>   licenses to practice this art.  Specifically, in support of any RSA
>   signature standard which may be adopted, Public Key Partners hereby
>   gives its assurance that licenses to practice RSA signatures will be
>   available under reasonable terms and conditions on a non-
>   discriminatory basis.

Those two sentences sound contradictory to me.  Don't IEEE and ANSI
require all the technologies involved in a standard to be in the public
domain?  If so, the only possible interpretation of "reasonable terms
and conditions" is "free".
-- 
	"You can't get here from here."
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:6208 alt.security.pgp:434 misc.legal:21748
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.185308.25306@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom (David Sternlight) writes:
>Hardly. In the former Soviet Union many crimes were committed which
>were not illegal, as, I warrant, in Bulgaria. That doesn't make them
>right. I suggest that if present-day Bulgaria wishes to gain the benefits
>of membership in the international economic community, or the EEC, it
>will have to bring its intellectual property laws in line, and until
>then, many of its actions constitute stealing according to international
>norms, even if not under the laws of Bulgaria.

David keeps repeating and repeating this.  It is simply incorrect to
claim that violating copyrights or patents (and if Bulgaria does not
use such concept there isn't any violation) is "stealing", and to hold
his own ethics as universal is a point view very much disrespective of
different societies and cultures.

Also, even in USA "intellectual property" is a misnomer - go read the
Constitution's rationale behind the patent and copyright laws.  It's
not to respect the "property" of the creator, it's the advancement of society.

//Jyrki
From: mjr@TIS.COM (Marcus J. Ranum)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: LUC vs. RSA
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:12:04 GMT
Reply-To: mjr@TIS.COM
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.

>Where it was developed is not relevant to ITAR.  If it performs encipherment, 
>it's covered--doesn't matter if it's foreign, domestic, PD or commercial.  

	LUC is also "patent applied for" according to the last couple of
lines of the article in Dobbs'. So it's likely to be neither free to use
or exportable.

mjr.
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:55:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC

In article <C00I30.66G@tnl.com> norstar@tnl.com (Daniel Ray) writes:
>I think the best idea would be to:
>
>1. Vacate and cancel sci.crypt, and, at the same time
>2. Create 2 new groups sci.crypt.general and sci.crypt.theory
>
>This keeps both groups at the same level of bifurcation in the hierarchy,
>which is much more convenient in terms of setting up newsfeeds and sys files.
>
>Also it forces people to come to an understanding regarding which group
>is for what purpose.

I'd suggest renaming sci.crypt to sci.crypt.misc and creating a new
newsgroup sci.crypt.research (possibly moderated by someone with no
axe to grind and who isn't employed by RSA or any government).
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:22:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.060924.14629@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>35 USC 271 (g)
>"Whoever without authority imports into the United States or
>sells or uses within the United States a product which is made by a
>process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if
>the importation, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of
>such process patent.  

If the "process" is encryption of plaintext by a public key, then wouldn't
the "product made by the process" be:

   o The public/private key pair, and
   o Text encrypted by the public key

To cover the code, I would expect the statute to say something like, "product
incorporating the process," or "product making use of the process".  Case law
may have (mistakenly, IMHO) extended the law to include this, but the statute 
listed doesn't seem to say that.

                                             James Parker
                                             jap@cb1focus.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:14:15 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

>>>>> jbuck@messier.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) (JB) writes:

JB> Correct.  Here's the list of PKP patents, from an archive maintained by
JB> the League for Programming Freedom:

JB> 4,405,829
JB> Cryptographic Communications System and Method
JB> filed 12/14/77
JB> granted 9/20/83
JB> inventors Ronald Rivest, Shamir, Adleman
JB> assignee Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JB> The RSA public key cryptosystem, and any communication system that evaluates
JB> a polynomial modulo a prime number.
                          ^^^^^
JB> This is the "RSA" patent.
JB> Public Key partners has exclusive sublicensing rights.

Strange. I thought the modulus in RSA was not a prime number but the
product of two. 
-- 
Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: +31 30 531806   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   +31 30 513791   Internet:  piet@cs.ruu.nl   (*`Pete')
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: Owen.Lewis@purplet.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect Cracker
Organization: FidoNet node 2:252/305.0 - The Purple Tentacle, Reading
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:52:00 +0000

 -=> Quoting Ron Dippold to All <=-

 RD> I've already released the source code for my Word Perfect password
 RD> cracker / decrypter to the public domain, but it's hard to find, and
 RD> I've had lots of email requests, so I figured I'd just post it here.
 RD> Is that appropriate, or should I use one of the sources groups?

 Personally, I'd be apperiate seeing it here, Ron. 
 
 Regards,

 Owen Lewis



___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: Breaking RSA?
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:20:45 GMT


In article <BznFDu.5uI@cs.bham.ac.uk>, jwh@cs.bham.ac.uk (James Hawtin) writes:
|> Ok so I understand now how the RSA system works, I am sure others have already asked
|> but what is the best way to attack it?

If you can arrange to deliver ciphertext and see the decrypted plaintext,
I have heard it said that a ciphertext frame of ...00002 will show up the
private key nicely.  I think one can work out a test of this with small keys.

Moral:  Don't decrypt such a frame! 
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:41:03 GMT

The ink was barely dry on Mr. Sternlight's accusations that I had
engaged in a "slimy" personal attack on him, when we see this posted
by him...

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Jyrki (apt name) posts another anti-U.S. screed in which he says that

You owe Jyrki an apology. If you do not apologise for this statement,
you shal reveal yourself to be nothing less than a hypocrite who
complains about the behavior of others while himself engaging in it.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: help - recommend a crypto book.
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:35:54

Basically I recommend spending a few weeks studying some elementary
abstract algebra and number theory.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:31:08 GMT

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Arthur Rubin discusses the possibility of PKP going after end users.
>It's worth noting that in such a case, they can ask for legal fees
>as well, and if they win, the result could be very damaging to some

Not here in the US they can't. We don't follow the UK rule concerning
recovery of legal fees. Judges can award such compensation, but rarely
do. 

>Others think that the legal costs of going after someone are high
>and thus not worth it for PKP. It should be noted that PKP has
>in-house as well as retainer counsel, and that the costs might
>be quite low.

So would the damages, however. Reasonably, PKP can't recover more than
they are charging for a particular kind of damages, and prehaps a
punitive damage award which won't in practice be more than a small
multiple. Given the cost of MailSafe (under $100), lets say,
optimistically, that they manage to collect $1000 from you in the
suit. Its highly unlikely that any reasonable suit, even one that was
settled out of court, would take so little time that $1000 would be a
reasonable payback.

Caution: I'm not a lawyer, so in spite of my familiarity with the
legal system its unlikely to be a good idea to follow my advice. On
the other hand, Sternlight hasn't proven to be a reliable source,
whereas a professor at Columbia Law HAS argued that it would be
impractical to sue end users.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Date: 30 Dec 1992 04:09:07 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

norstar@tnl.com (Daniel Ray) writes:

>I think the best idea would be to:

>1. Vacate and cancel sci.crypt, and, at the same time
>2. Create 2 new groups sci.crypt.general and sci.crypt.theory

>This keeps both groups at the same level of bifurcation in the hierarchy,
>which is much more convenient in terms of setting up newsfeeds and sys files.


Excellent idea!  Hear, hear!


>Also it forces people to come to an understanding regarding which group
>is for what purpose.


Precisely. And no need for any kind of "moderation", either.
Most of us are grown ups.


>dan ray
>-- 
>The Northern Lights, Troy NY                                 |     
>tnl dialins: +1 518 237-2163 @ 1200-2400 bps 8N1 $free     ` | /   
>-------------------------------------------------------  --- * --- 
>Internet: norstar@tnl.com                                  / | .   
>Sysop of TNL Public Access UNIX                              |     



Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: Legal Stuff!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:25:50 GMT


Uri posts a distorted message, about which he should know better since he
was a RIPEM beta tester.

"I have to disappoint you: the final RSAREF license makes it clear,
that in order to access it in any way other than the published
interface, you need a prior permission from PKP. And since
the set of published interfaces is too poor, PGP can't
be rewritten to use it, nor any decent program."

False and misleading. RSA has already given permission to two programs
to modify the interface, RIPEM and one other, and has said that though
they want to be asked, they won't deny further reasonable requests.

Until uri finds them denying a request those without a chip on their
shoulder would find reasonable, he is simply continuing his biased
attacks on RSA without evidence.

I see no reason a rewritten U.S. PGP would be denied approval to modify
RSAREF if they ask politely and with clean hands. I define clean
hands as asking in a non-inflammatory way that doesn't arouse bad
historical memories. For example, a request for a permission for
a program called something other than PGP, but which is PGP file
and protocol compatible, from someone other than Phil Zimmerman
would be clearly non-inflammatory. That's not to say they wouldn't
honor a request from Phil, but there are degrees of red flags
here.

If one's objective is to get a "legal" U.S. version of PGP using
RSAREF, one will proceed in one way. If one's objective is to
make RSA wrong, one will proceed in a different way.

I am not interested in a discussion whose purpose is to make
RSA wrong. What I am interested in is seeing a version of PGP
in the U.S. that clearly doesn't violate either RSA's patents,
or the Munitions Act and its implementing regulations.

This has never been a civil rights issue for me, as it seems to
be for some others. It has been a practical issue of getting
the result without violating the law and patents as they are
both claimed to be. I'll let others fight their issue of
claiming the patent isn't valid and challenging it, or
trying to get the Munitions Act changed. That's not my issue
since my personal view is that the patents ARE valid, and that
the Munitions Act and implementing regulations are reasonable
and proper unless someone else can convince Congress or the
courts to change.

-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM key on server
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:24:54 GMT


I think at bottom my disagreement with Jyrki (I know he won't take
offense at my use of his first name; since it's so unique we all
know to whom i'm responding) is one of belief. I believe one's
intellectual creations, if unique and a contribution to others,
are 'property'. He may not.

One may dispose of such property as one sees fit (with a few exceptions).
Thus there are a group of people called "academics" who have a
set of practices about their intellectual creations. There's another
group of artists and writers who have another set. Note that even
those practices aren't universal--academics take out patents, and
writers get copyrights. But the reason some things are "free" is
that the creators have taken an individual decision to make
them free, not some universal moral principle.

There's no "truth" about whether RSA is entitled to compensation
outside the U.S. for their invention. There's law (which apparently
does not protect--which is a lot different from saying they're not
ethically entitled), and there's ethics, which arises from one's basic
assumptions.

I've made mine clear and Jyrki has made his clear. Since there's
no 'truth' about this, it's not going to get resolved, so I suggest
we leave the ethical discussion where it is and move on (as some
have pleaded), to SCI.crypt rather than VALUES.crypt.

Have people noticed that there's now an alt.security.ripem? Watch
it for developments real soon now.

David
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: LUC vs. RSA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:23:25 -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 1.1b29

erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
> Anyone seen the article in the January 1993 Dr. Dobb's about LUC?  It's 
> supposed to be more secure than RSA, and it was developed in Australia (
> which means it isn't hamstrung by the silly ITAR)... 

Where it was developed is not relevant to ITAR.  If it performs encipherment, 
it's covered--doesn't matter if it's foreign, domestic, PD or commercial.  
This is the principle manner in which ITAR presents a trade barrier to U.S. 
vendors who are trying to compete in international markets.

The Department of Commerce likes exports.  The Department of State doesn't.
That's the U.S. regulatory system for you.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Newsgroups: sci.crypt