HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew)
Subject: Re: Where is PGP 2.0?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 10:30:04 GMT

>telnet archie.ans.net
...

archie> prog pgp20.zip
# matches / % database searched:   12 /100%

Host qiclab.scn.rain.com   (147.28.0.97)
Last updated 05:35 10 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/mail
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Oct  7 00:59   pgp20.zip

Host princeton.edu   (128.112.128.1)
Last updated 05:06 10 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/pgp20
      FILE      rw-rw-rw-    177867  Sep 21 22:56   pgp20.zip

Host pencil.cs.missouri.edu   (128.206.100.207)
Last updated 05:06  9 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 02:51   pgp20.zip

Host pc.usl.edu   (130.70.40.3)
Last updated 05:01  9 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/msdos/crypto
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Oct  5 12:54   pgp20.zip

Host nic.funet.fi   (128.214.6.100)
Last updated 05:40  7 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/netinfo/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip
    Location: /pub/doc/netinfo/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip
    Location: /pub/doc/FUNET/security/misc/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  9 22:31   pgp20.zip

Host leif.thep.lu.se   (130.235.92.55)
Last updated 06:06  4 Nov 1992

    Location: /pub/Misc
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Oct 16 14:40   pgp20.zip

Host goya.dit.upm.es   (138.4.2.2)
Last updated 06:00  7 Oct 1992

    Location: /info/unix/misc/pgp20
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep 25 13:10   pgp20.zip

Host 149.132.2.1   (149.132.2.1)
Last updated 05:45  7 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/crypt
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep  5 10:28   pgp20.zip

Host ftp.uni-kl.de   (131.246.9.95)
Last updated 16:03  6 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/atari/incoming
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep 16 12:15   pgp20.zip

Host tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de   (137.226.112.31)
Last updated 05:54  6 Oct 1992

    Location: /pub/rz.archiv/simtel/msdos/MSDOS_UPLOADS
      FILE      rw-r--r--    177867  Sep 14 19:55   pgp20.zip

archie> bye
Connection closed by foreign host.
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4895 alt.privacy:2309 comp.org.eff.talk:7091
From: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:52:58 GMT
Reply-To: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0

cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
> law enforcement (LE) and crooks alike have had a brief
> period ... of easy access to what was intended to be private
> conversations ...
> When this brief period finally comes to an end, LE will have to go back
> to doing what it did before.

Not exactly.  "What it did before" was part of a world without electronic
communication.  Whatever happens wrt cryptography, electronic communication
will remain.  The old LE tools are not likely to be applicable.

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: schneier@chinet.chi.il.us (Bruce Schneier)
Subject: Re: Questions about MD5 and DES
Keywords: DES IDEA MD5
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.055949.1294@seanews.akita.com> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>I've been hacking together a little program that does encryption using
>    key, decryption using another, then re-encryption using the
>    first key.  Is this correct?  i.e., E3(P,K) = E(D(E(P,K1),K2),K1)

Yes.

2.  Has triple DES actually been proven to be stronger than a single
>    DES encryption?  I guess this boils down to whether DES has been
>    proven to be a group.

DES is not a group.  See Keith Cambell and Michael Weiner's paper in the
Crypto 92 proceedings, whenever Springer-Verlag gets around to publishing
them.

>3.  I've been using MD5 to hash an arbitary user-entered string into
>    a key for the encryption process.  Is MD5 really suitable for the
>    task?  It appears to be a particularly good hash for long strings
>    of text, but is it suitable for short password-length text?

Yes.

>4.  In order to provide fast user-feedback if an incorrect decryption
>    key is entered, I'm storing a "checksum" of the first block of
>    plaintext in the encrypted file.  I was originally using a
>    simple checksum, but that might give away too much information
>    about the first block.  Now I apply MD5 to the block and take
>    a byte of the message digest as the check digit.  Is this
>    reasonable or would it be better to simply use the first
>    8 bytes of the file as a DES/IDEA key to encrypt a constant and store
>    a byte of that constant?

Encrypting a constant is always dangerous, but both DES and (so far) IDEA
are resistant to that kind of known plaintext attack.  Going with a checksum
just seems safer.

>5.  Which is stronger, CBC or CFB?  Is one preferred over the other in
>    cases where byte-per-byte output isn't important?

Both are secure.  CBC is more efficient, since you are encrypting data in
64-bit blocks.

Bruce

Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.sys.next.misc
From: lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson)
Subject: Re: UNIX Mail with PubKey Encryption
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:17:04 GMT

louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.135015.19748@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:

>If FEE is legal to use in the US, then why did it mysteriously
>disappear from 3.0?  Is NeXT afraid of a legal challange from RSA?
>I've been very curious about this since the early 3.0 announcements
>made a really big deal about this capability.

I believe that the answer NeXT gave was that it didn't want to have
an international/domestic version, and to worry about some NeXTs not
understanding some e-mails while others can.  So, it was dropped
from this release.    Basically, they were waiting to hear from the
Gov't. if they would be allowed to export it, and they heard from
NSA/whomever that they could not (sometime between PR1 and PR2).

>The principles behind RSA are pretty well known; the source code to
>PGP is also available.  I would be a higher degree of trust in this
>software rather then a "black box" with unknown properties.

>If you don't believe that you can use PGP legally, perhaps you should
>wait for the RIPEM package to become avialable, which is distributed
>with the RSAREF software from RSA.  I believe that you will be able to
>use this software for non-commercial purposes with RSA's blessing.
>RIPEM messages look somewhat like PEM, though it doesn't use
>certificates, just "bare" public/private keys.

Does blessing = $$$ as it supposedly does now?  (I am under the
impression that you can use things like PGP if you get a license
from Public Key Partners)
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: A new encryption problem?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:09:59 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 <1992Nov16.225122.2607@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) writes:
> Conclusion:  Strong cryptography as a social issue is indeed a
> modern situation.
>>Why should this suddenly be a problem?
>                 ^^^^^^^^
> See above.
	This reminds me of the copyright issue with xerox machines.
	I recall a time when I was back in college that it was illegal
	to photocopy copyrighted works.  Everyone did it.   It was unstoppable
	so they changed the law.  When EVERYBODY is a criminal NOBODY is a
	criminal.  The same thing will happen with crypto.  Even the big bad 
	New World Order (TM) couldn't have locked us all up and even that is
	history now.  (Ah, sweet justice! ;-)).

> What I want is for people who are interested in cryptography to
> be prepared to answer a call for legislation, should it occur
> (as I expect that it will).
	Massive disobedience would suffice.

>And it really is impossible to truly
>understand issues without paying the opponents the respect of
>trying to understand their point of view. 
	Try as I might I can't understand David Duke. ;-) I'm sorry Terry
	but this Big Brother is our rightful master stuff is just too
	far off in the weeds.  Not only is key registration evil, it is 
	unenforceable and it doesn't matter how many Quislings try to 
	defend it---those facts won't change.

>I believe there is at least a potential for some serious social
>problems which are a direct consequence of the widespread use of
>serious cryptography.
	Doesn't this argument sound like a luddite argument to you Terry?

> I believe we would be well advised to
> seek out these problems and understand them and propose solutions
> we can live with, as opposed to waiting for the rest of society
> to encounter problems and then impose *their* solutions on us.
	I haven't heard a single argument that worried me about the
	widespread use of cryptography.  Everything that has been mentioned
	so far has been pretty unscary I would say.  There's no future in
	fretting about the future. ;-) Technology has proven pretty unstoppable
	so far.  It has even proven rather hard to stop in countries that have
	a long and bloody history of oppression.  (See the IEEE Spectrum 
	article a couple issues ago that mentioned the impact of electronic 
	mail on the Soviet Coup).  

	I don't know how to get this across to you Terry but the toothpaste
	is very much out of the tube now and there is no way of legislating
	this technology away.  The tools are just too necessary to the smooth
	functioning of the economy.  Even if the government wanted to take 
	away all the tools they couldn't without plunging the economy into
	a tailspin.  George Bush can tell you how important the economy is
	to re-election. ;-)


						smg











Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:35:25 GMT
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 <1992Nov17.001101.21926@ncar.ucar.edu> prz@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Philip Zimmermann) writes:
>If we are to prevent the electorate from backing legislation that
>will make cryptography a crime, we must have articulate agruments
>that will reach normal people with normal values.  Some of what I've
>seen lately does not meet that requirement.
	Sometimes you have to let the system break before it can
	be fixed.  The electorate has authorized all sorts of
	abominations lately.  The one that sticks most firmly
	in my craw is civil forfeiture.  It has been my experience
	that normal people with normal values hold some pretty outrageous
	positions about race, sex, gender, freedom, civil rights etc.  

>What I now read from some of you folks smacks of the same level of
>fanaticism as my old marginalized hardliner leftist friends with their
>Politically Correct preaching to the choir.  They used to incessantly
>bicker amongst themselves over who had the most orthodox P.C.
>position.  We used to have a joke--  "Q: How do you make a leftist
>firing squad?  A: Line everyone up in a big circle."   Sound
>familiar?  How are we ever going to reach the electorate?
	Fanaticism is part and parcel of free speech.  One man's
	fanaticism is another man's reasonable position.  Spirited
	public debate, and heated discussion is an old tradition
	in America.

	Have you considered the possibility that you may be
	wasting your time trying to explain cryptography to the electorate
	of a nation in which most people have not mastered 8th grade
	math?   Sad but true.

	And another thing dammit! ;-) I can't help grimacing whenever I hear 
	someone use the word "politically correct".  That little phrase has
	been the biggest success story in the right wing's campaign
	to ridicule diversity.  Even people on the left seem to use it.
	Its a red herring and it is usually used to batter people into
	being silent on issues of racism and sexism.  If you complain of
	insensitivity to the feelings of any group OTHER than hetero-sexual
	WASPS you are being "politically correct".   Right!



>I suppose these remarks will disillusion some of my PGP fans.  Oh well. 
	On the contrary, spirited debate is necessary for the truth
	to come out.  True believers in freedom welcome your point of view
	even if they thing you are totally off base.

>I'm going to be out of town for a few days this week.  I dread the
>500 backlogged testosterone-driven sci.crypt postings that will
>certainly be piled up when I return.  Damn.  When will the newsgroup
>ever get back to normal?
	Perhaps when they outlaw testosterone along with marijuana
	and public key cryptography. ;-)  Maybe we need a war on
	gonads. ;-)


						smg

Xref: sparky sci.logic:2045 sci.math:14998
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: What is Computer Science (was: Natural Kinds)
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:48:06 GMT
Followup-To: sci.logic
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BxGBsJ.8qG@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov9.005241.29492@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>
>|> To me computer science is about four interactions: information and
>|> time, computation and communication, models and reality, and
>|> perspective and users.  Discreteness is neither emphasized nor
>|> deemphasized in this view, the integers and the reals are both
>|> important in CS.
>
>Do you see CS as having any immediate empirical content in the
>manner of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?  If so, could you
>describe this a bit?  (I concede that "immediate empirical
>content" is not very precise, but I think we know what is 
>intended.)  It seems pretty clear that given your view of the
>nature of CS, it really has nothing to do with actual physical
>machines, but rather more properly deals with "machines" in the
>logical (mathematical) sense (Turing machines, for example).
>
>Your view of CS is a coherent one, but I'm not sure
>how widely received it would be.  Simply as a matter of your
>own personal opinion, do you think this view is widely shared
>(in both academia and industry), or do you offer it rather along

This is a source of contention in CS where many academics have followed
such savants as Hoare in insisting  that the objects of interest in CS
are certain mathematical objects, while others consider CS to be
concerned with the study of computing devices and their programs. 
In my very humble opinion, the work informed by the first view is generally
rather trivial from both mathematical and engineering perspectives.




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Logic and Mathematicians
Date: 20 Nov 92 04:09:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov19.230948.17624
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <56452@dime.cs.umass.edu> 
yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.222220.7956@dorsai.com> 
>mutation@dorsai.com (Florian Lengyel) writes:

FL:
>>If you believe the polynomial-time version of Church's thesis, this situation
>>cannot occur (assuming that polynomial-time means the same thing in both
>>models). 

VY:
>What's the polynomial-time version of Church's thesis?  Note that
>a computation requiring Ackermann(1000,1000)+n steps can be carried out
>in linear time, but is surely not feasably computable.

Victor, you old ne-plus-ultra-intuitionist, you took the words right
out of my mouth.  Florian, I have no idea what you are talking about.
None of the treatments of Church's thesis known to me seem to shed any
light on your use of the term.  This is not just a matter of feasible
computability being demonstrably different in its extension from
polynomial-time computability, but that of the dubious relevance of
issues of complexity to the matter at hand.

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: img@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Ian Green)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Programs for simple logic proofs:  where are they?
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:48:48 GMT
	<PLUMMER.92Nov16180704@nutmeg.cs.swarthmore.edu>
Organization: Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh


If you're looking for an interactive system, you might try FOL or
its derivative, GETFOL.  Contact Fausto Giunchiglia, at fausto@irst.it or
fausto@dist.unige.it for more info.  Weyhrauch80 describes FOL.

	-ian

@article(Weyhrauch80,
        Author = {Weyhrauch, Richard W.},
         Title = {Prolegomena to a Theory of Mechanized Formal Reasoning},
          Year = {1980},
       Journal = AI,
        Volume = {13},
         Pages = {133--170})

thread:
On 16 Nov 92 23:07:04 GMT, plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) said:
> In article <1992Nov16.183210.9769@beaver.cs.washington.edu> jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) writes:

>JJ> In article <4804@equinox.unr.edu> mjb@dws020.unr.edu (Mike Brown) writes:
>>I am looking for programs that will do proofs like:
>>			Prove: Q            \
>>	1 P then Q	Premis               > The problem
>>	2 P		Premis              /
>>	3 Q             1, 2, Modus Ponens  >  The program's proof
>>
>>(The proofs do get more involved)
>>
>>Is there a program out there that will do these proofs?

>JJ> I saw two responses to this post, recommending Otter and HOL.  I think they
>JJ> made it clear that they were probably not what Mike Brown was looking for.
>JJ> The Otter and HOL versions of this very simple proof don't look a whole lot
>JJ> like Mike's very clear presentation.  I've read the book about Otter and 
>JJ> learned/used a little of HOL; they are both powerful research systems, with
>JJ> all that entails.

>JJ> I think what the original post was asking for was a simple natural
>JJ> deduction prover for propositional logic, where the problem
>JJ> statements and proofs look much as they do in a logic textbook.
>JJ> Do such things exist?  The nearest thing I have read about is
>JJ> "Muffin: A Proof Assistant", a chapter by Richard C. Moore in
>JJ> Jones and Shaw, CASE STUDIES IN SYSTEMATIC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT,
>JJ> Prentice Hall International, 1990. I recall the chapter saying
>JJ> something about Muffin being made available.  I wonder if anyone
>JJ> is using it.

> Andrews' system, ack I can't remember its name right now, allws you to
> construct proofs in exactly the standard natural deduction
> presentation of the original poster's example.  Contact Peter Andrews
> at CMU.  Of course, the underlying logic of this prover is typed
> higher order logic, and is significantly more powerful (and hence
> harder to understand) than the simple example would suggest.

> Another system that comes to mind is MacLogic developed by Roy Dychoff
> at St. Andrews University (rd@cs.st-and.ac.uk).  I am not sure of the
> availability, but this is the sort of system I would choose for
> teaching natural deduction to neophytes.

> -- Dave
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Why Logic?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:16:53 GMT

Can anyone explain why we use logic? Unfortunately, any logical arguments to
support logic, are unfortunately, invalid.
--Ray Cote
From: klaus@hal.nta.no (Klaus Gaarder FNI)
Subject: Re: Why Logic?
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:47:19 GMT

In article <MARTINC.92Nov17151735@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.091653.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
|> 
|>    Can anyone explain why we use logic? Unfortunately, any logical arguments to
|>    support logic, are unfortunately, invalid.
|> 
|> Because if you don't use logic we'll kill you.
|> 
|> (Can we start a group for bozos who want to propose dusty old paradoxes
|> as if they were somehow something we hadn't all seen a thousand times
|> before?  Something like alt.logic.stupid-tricks?)
|> --
|> 		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
|>      Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
|> 	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
|>      "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
|>       to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T

This kind of response is what you expect from the dogmatic only, and being
dogmatic is a simple reason NOT to use logic. Also your response suggest you
don't like to think too hard about what you're doing,  and why you're doing it.
It must be the power of commercials: "Just Do It!"

Your kind of flame is simply pathetic.

KGa
-- 
    __o   
  _`\<,_  
 (*)/ (*) Claudio Caputti
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++^++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Free will - the result of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the brain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.logic:2104 sci.math:15240
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Logic and Mathematicians
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:56:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.logic
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov16.222220.7956@dorsai.com> mutation@dorsai.com (Florian Lengyel) writes:
>If you believe the polynomial-time version of Church's thesis, this situation
>cannot occur (assuming that polynomial-time means the same thing in both
>models). 

What's the polynomial-time version of Church's thesis?  Note that
a computation requiring Ackermann(1000,1000)+n steps can be carried out
in linear time, but is surely not feasably computable.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.logic