From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:16:04 GMT
	<1992Dec14.174736.21510@netcom.com> <1992Dec14.185400.29644@netcom.com>

In article <1992Dec14.185400.29644@netcom.com> rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
   If PGP is to become a world standard, given RSAREF, import/export
   restrictions, RIPEM, etc., then:
   1) Somebody in Europe needs to re-design PGP to use RSAREF, or an equivalent
   non-RSA algorithm.   [....] [..non-RSA?..]
   2) Somebody in Europe needs to reverse engineer the RSAREF functionality.
   Given that the whole world has re-implemented RSA itself, this shouldn't
   be too big a deal.
   So, the US can import PGP without any RSA PK code, and get the RSAREF
   from a legitimate source.

To add a little perspective to these comments (:-)), and to offended reply,
1) RSAREF is merely a specific implementation of the RSA algorithms,
	and has a specific set of subroutine calls and data structures
	that you use to communicate with it.   I assume RSA and/or PKP
	probably sells a faster implementation in software or hardware,
	or at least wants to leave their options open so they can do so.
	A well-written RSAREF version of PGP could communicate perfectly 
	well with the current version.

1b) A non-RSA public-key system might not help - while PKP's claims to
	patent protection for ANY use of public-key might not stand up
	in court (unlike their claims to use of RSA, which are pretty strong),
	I don't know anybody who wants to risk the amount of money it
	will take to test all the peripheral claims, especially if they
	have to explain it all to a non-technical jury or judge.
	So we might as well use RSAREF.

1b2) PGP 2.* chose to change encryption algorithms to escape US restrictions
	while using good-quality encryption (and to escape possible NSA
	ability to crack DES, unlikely though that may be.)
	We aren't using bass-o-matic any more, and if somebody outside the
	USA comes up with a good non-RSA Public-Key system that can
	be used here as well, it may go into PGP 3.X or PGP4.X
	if it offers real advantages, so no sense getting grouchy
	about the suggestion that we might want to change algorithms again.
	(Though backward compatibility is nice if you can get it.)
	Personally, I'm more concerned about making sure PGP conforms to MIME.

2) If somebody re-engineers PGP's internals to use RSAREF's interfaces, and
	makes sure that the private-key sections also have clean interfaces,
	then we can split PGP into two layers:
		- the control / formatting / mailer / user interface layer
		- the encryption algorithm layer
	which lets us distribute the first part internationally,
	work on it cooperatively, etc., because it's NOT CRYPTO,
	so you foreigners (:-)) can benefit from our work,
	and the crypto layer can use locally developed code.
	Yankees can stay home and use RSAREF free while keeping PKP happy,
	and use Genuine-Made-In-USA implementations of IDEA,
	while you folks (or RSA licensees) can use faster RSA implementations,
	and maybe we'll be able to tap into the commercial email market as well,
	so that people who want to buy user-friendly pre-packaged mailers
	for their DOS-boxes can communicate with Real People.
--
#				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: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp