HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrusmise@ee.ubc.ca (RUSMISEL JASON DIRK)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:07:31 GMT



I have a question concerning the atcual meaning of the word "algorithm" and 
the word "implementation" in regards to the discussion of the importation
of PGP to the US. A compiled binary program is obviously and "implemenation."
However,  is an uncompiled source code an "implementation"  or is it an
"algorithm?"  

	My question is is it possible to distribute a very 
accurate version of the algorithm for PGP that with a little work, here
in North America, could be developed into a real working implemenation?
What sort of modifications to c-code would be necessary to make it an 
"algorithm" rather than an implemenatation.

	Am I going off the deep end here?


Jason Rusmisel
UBC Electrical Engineering
Vancouver Canada.
 

Newsgroups: alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.security.pgp
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.124326.17185@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rja14@cl.cam.ac.uk (Ross Anderson) writes:

>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>>Let's take a closer look at that. PGP 2.x was written in Europe
>>based on PGP1.0. PGP 1.0 was illegally exported from the U.S.
>>In the U.S. PGP was based on RSA's patents, and used them
>>without permission, i.e. it was stolen goods.

>Get your facts right:

>(1) New Zealand was not part of Europe last time I looked at a map

Right you are.  Brownie points.

>(2) If you don't live in the USA, US law doesn't apply and so neither
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tell *that* to Manuel Noriega.  US law, unfortunately, applies precisely
as far as US military forces feel like making it apply.

>    the ITAR regulations or the RSA patents have any force.

>Or are you one of those people who claim that the USA should enforce 
>its laws wherever it likes, regardless of other jurisdictions?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
From: andrewr@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Andrew Rutherford)
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Re: Telnet port numbers
Date: 12 Dec 1992 04:36:32 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mark (mark@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
+ >In article <1fl85rINN9s1@ginger.csv.warwick.ac.uk> cstadge@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G R Douglas) writes:
+ >>Anyone know if there is a way to find out all the programs runnning on
+ >>particular ports at a given machine (without repeatedly telnetting to them)
+ >>Someone keeps finding a port code every time I set one up!

+ >Dunno if this is for SunOS only but you can give it a try:
+ >	rpcinfo -p hostname.you.are.interested.in

+ That will give those programs registered with the portmapper.

	As pointed out, this only gives RPC, not everything else...

+ I think what Mr Douglas wants to know is the 'netstat -a' option which if run
+ on that machine will report every port that is being listened too by an
+ application. 

	The problem I have with "netstat -a" is that it gives you a
list of connections, but not who's using them. I wrote a program called
"netproc", based of "ofiles" (actually, it's ofiles taken a hacked about
in a major way), which wanders down the process table looking for all
file descriptors that are sockets, then pulls out as much info as it
can on each one.
	If anyone's interested, it's available via anonymous ftp
from iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au:/pub/src/netproc.c. Currently I haven't
had time to write a man page, but the options are listed in the first
page or so of the source.

Example output, run on a student machine around here:

brian> netproc If
USER        PID  CMD           FD DOMAIN   TYP  INFORMATION
crharris   7696  telnet         3 internet tcp   1565 -> telnet  128.255.40.203
brian> netproc IRL
USER        PID  CMD           FD DOMAIN   TYP  INFORMATION
studora     215  orasrv         3 internet tcp  orasrv   listen
games       220  xtrekd         3 internet tcp  xtrek    listen

	The first form gives all foreign (to a different network,
not subnet) Internet connections, the second gives all non-root owned
listening Internet sockets.

Some may find this useful, I'm sure there are other similar programs
around. Currently known to run on SunOS and Ultrix.

Cya,
	Andrew.

/*
 * andrewr@itd.adelaide.edu.au            Andrew Rutherford
 * +61 8 228 5669                      Network Specialist, ITD
 * Room 1060, Adelaide Uni         GPO Box 498, Adelaide, SA, 5001
 */
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.sys.next.sysadmin
From: cedman@princeton.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Is your NeXT secretly running BSD ? (was: PGP v2.1 and NeXT)
To: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: University of California, Irvine
	<rich.724150542@pencil> <Q3CVBV64@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:42:22 GMT

In article <Q3CVBV64@cc.swarthmore.edu> eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver) writes:
   And, I still stand by my claim that the NeXT is a Mach machine, but I
   can see how my statement was misinterptreted.  I agree that the NeXT,
   has BSD interfaces and BSD programs, not SysV programs and SysV
   interfaces.  But, at the core it is a Mach Kernel which is very
   different in its features and design than just saying BSD.

Even if technically NeXT is not running "real" BSD, for all practical
purposes the NeXT OS is as compatible with machines running "pure" BSD
as those machines are among themselves. This includes most areas of
the kernel which a kernel driver would be interested in.

If you don't believe me go and disassemble /mach with otool and
compare kernel functions with the functions of the same name (dead
give away) eg. in the kernel source for the BSD networking release II.
Clearly the former was compiled from at most slightly different
versions of the later (and frequently not even that). While there are
some minor unpleasant surprises, NeXT could in good faith market its
machines as running BSD. (BTW, I hope that disassembling the kernel
image is legal - if it isn't I've never done it).

        Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: ken@halcyon.com (Ken Pizzini)
Subject: Re: Status of DES, or "Is the DES Standard PD?"
Keywords: (DES) and not (PGP or RSA)
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:39:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.075845.27376@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> spc@pineal.math.fau.edu (Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner) writes:
>  Can I use DES without having to pay royalties/licensing fees, etc, if I
>impliment the code myself?  

Yes, just don't export it outside of the US (well, Canada is okay) or
you'll be dealing with ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulations).

>  And along those lines, is there validation data I can use to see if my
>implimentation of DES is 'up to spec'?
Why not just pick up one of many fine copies off the Net?  Why bother
rewriting it again?

		--Ken Pizzini
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc
From: alexb@minerva1.bull.it (Alessandro Bottonelli)
Subject: Re: PGP 2.1 site list
Keywords: pgp pkzip
Organization: Bull Italia SpA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:31:03 GMT

s0rah@exnet.co.uk (R A Hollands) writes:

>I've fetched pgp21.zip three times from funet and every time I end
>up with a zip file that crc errors in the two doc files and the exe.

>I am using pkunzip 1.1.  Anyone else have this trouble?  Anyone have
>have a stunningly obvious solution?

>TIA Richard.

>[s0rah@exnet.co.uk]

Having tha same trouble with pgp21.zip from ghost.dsi.unimi.it, david
(the sysop) swears all checks on his side are OK. Maybe some version
incompatibility of PKUNZIP ? Any idea out there ?



-- 
== Alex Bottonelli / Bull Italia BSP  | FAX  : +39-(0)2-6779/8463             ==
== I.S./W.S./Network Security Officer | PHONE: +39-(0)2-6779/8324             ==
== E-MAIL: A.Bottonelli@it12.bull.it  | (BullCom users dial 260+extension)    ==
== BULLTX: /BULLX/IT12X/BOTTONELLI A. | PubKey: finger alexb@minerva1.bull.it ==
Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:204 alt.security:5091 sci.crypt:5731 talk.politics.misc:64492 talk.politics.guns:25289
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:44:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
> Leaving aside the inflammatory language in "mathew"'s post (I still
> can't figure out if that's his last name or what),

It's my name.

>                                                        his message
> suggests that violation of the law by using PGP in the U.S. is a
> form of civil disobedience analogous to the Black freedom struggle.

No, not at all.  You made a general statement that you did not support the
breaking of laws as a means towards getting rid of those laws.  I merely
mentioned the struggle for black freedom to show up how odious such a
position is.

I did not at any time state or imply that the struggle for black freedom was
analogous to the struggle for public key cryptosystems.  Take your strawman
elsewhere.

> Second, since he writes from the U.K., it's like counseling someone
> else to take the law into their own hands with no personal
> responsibility-- a kind of let's you and him fight.

Since I believe the UK has laws prohibiting the sending of encrypted messages
over telephone lines, every time I use PGP I am risking arrest.


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely via PGP 2.1.  For information, send mail
to pgpinfo@mantis.co.uk.  For a big block of keys, mail pgpkeys@mantis.co.uk.
PGP public key fingerprint = B2 41 30 5F 5B 20 B9 D5  7C 8F 75 88 7C DA D8 C5

Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:138 alt.security:5043 sci.crypt:5608 talk.politics.misc:63892 talk.politics.guns:25102
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:04:54 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,) writes:
> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger):
> >>Why does PGP has those ugly lines "----BEGIN PGP...."
> >>and so on? PGP-2.1 is much better than PGP-2.0. Let's
> >>make it really good now -  GET RID OF THOSE BETRAYING
> >>TAGS! NOW!
> 
> > I don't think there is any point in stripping them, since it adds 
> > no security for you and will make the program a lot more 
> > inconvenient to use. 
> 
> I do, since it can increase security via making it "unprovable" 
> that the message is encrypted/created my PGP. Yes, this will 
> prohibit one from simply piping the whole message through PGP and 
> getting plaintext. Well, it depends on which concern is bigger - to
> have to strip head/tail off the arriving e-mail,  or fear to get 
> caught with using "guerilla" PGP... (:-)

increase security? not if you're using PGP to sign your public
posts. all anyone who wants to prove you're using PGP has to do
is

 a) add their own begin/end lines like anyone else
 b) run it through PGP with your public key. if PGP correctly verifies
	your message then there's no way you can deny it. that's
	the whole point of digital signatures.

if they want to get you they'll do it with or without the begin/end
lines. anything the average reader can verify the Feds can verify.
by taking out the taglines you're just adding an extra step.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` "True love is better than anything, except cough drops."            `,`
`,`                     - The Princess Bride (book), by William Goldman `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
From: s0rah@exnet.co.uk (R A Hollands)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:43:31 GMT

In article <9212171023.AA41266@chaos.intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>> Just curious, Amanda--does that mean you also think you have the right 
>> to keep and bear your own nukes? 
>
><raised eyebrow> well, comparing cryptosystems to "nukes" seems a bit far-
>fetched, but I do indeed support the right of private citizens to keep and 
>bear any type of military hardware.  In simple terms, my answer to your 
>question is "The right?  Yes.  The necessary HAZMAT facilities and licenses?  
>No."
>
>I'm really *quite* a strong supporter of the second amendment (and the rest 
>of the Bill of Rights), and interpret it in quite strong terms (as did, in 
>fact, the people who wrote it--read Jefferson's writings).
>
>However, this is getting a little far afield for sci.crypt :)...
>
>
>
>Amanda Walker
>InterCon Systems Corporation
>
>
You'd know this better than me but doesn't the amendment that grants the
right to bear arms say something about a local militis being seen as a
necessity "so the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?  Would you
use your crypto-susyem to support your local militia.

Richard



Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
From: karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:27:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.070917.4744@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> frechett@spot.Colorado.EDU (-=Runaway Daemon=-) writes:
>Put -----BEGIN PGP etc etc.. around all your messages.. encrypted or not.
>-----END PGP MESS-----   ;)

Okay, I can't take it anymore. Take this program. Please. I'm placing
it in the public domain. Do whatever you want with it. Annoy your snoopy
sysadmins. Confound the spooks. Have fun. --Phil

#include <stdio.h>
char table[] =
 "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";

main(argc,argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
	int lines;
	int chars;
	int i;
	long t;

	if(argc < 2){
		fprintf(stderr,"Usage: %s #lines\n",argv[0]);
		exit(1);
	}
	lines = atoi(argv[1]);
	time(&t);
	srandom((unsigned)t);
	printf("-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----\nVersion: 2.1\n\n");
	while(lines-- != 0){
		for(chars=64;chars != 0;chars--)
			putchar(table[random() % 64]);
		putchar('\n');
	}
	chars = random() % 64;
	while(chars-- != 0)
		putchar(table[random() % 64]);
	printf("\n=");
	for(chars=4;chars !=0;chars--)
		putchar(table[random() % 64]);
	putchar('\n');
	printf("-----END PGP MESSAGE-----\n");
}
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.sys.next.sysadmin
From: eoliver@ralph.cs.haverford.edu (Erik Oliver)
Subject: Re: PGP v2.1 and NeXT
Organization: Haverford College Computer Science Department
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:13:56 GMT

In order to avoid a flame fest, let me point out the old adage:
	'There is more than one way to skin a cat.'

My version of PGP works, your versions of PGP work, clearly there are
multiple ways to solve the non-compilation of PGP 2.1 on the next.

The fact is, I am not sure which modification set is the best, but the
modifications I made worked fine, so I'm happy with them.  By posting
I was just trying to let others know that the PGP 2.1 package wouldn't
compile instantly with make on their NeXT, perhaps we should let the
package author figure out what is most appropriate for PGP.

And, I still stand by my claim that the NeXT is a Mach machine, but I
can see how my statement was misinterptreted.  I agree that the NeXT,
has BSD interfaces and BSD programs, not SysV programs and SysV
interfaces.  But, at the core it is a Mach Kernel which is very
different in its features and design than just saying BSD.

-Erik
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Little to None
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:44:49 GMT

>As I remember, ITAR explicitly does not apply to technical data which has 
>been published in publically available media (books, magazines, etc.).

Two rather highly respected members of the net have made this claim, so
let's for a moment presume it is true.  If a sympathetic congressman
could be convinced to place the source code into the Congressional Record,
would this not constitute publishing the work, and therefore divorce it
from any ITAR jurisdiction?  Furthermore, I think the congressman would
be immune from prosecution, by constitutional edict, if this indeed would
ever become an issue.

This would not, of course, in any sense address PKP's claim as a patent
holder, but it might lessen the chance of government interdiction.

Comments?
-- 
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: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: uri@watson.ibm.com (Uri Blumenthal,35-016,8621267,)
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Originator: uri@aixproj.watson.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:07:37 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

From article <1992Dec11.030807.29118@shearson.com>, by pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger):
>>Why does PGP has those ugly lines "----BEGIN PGP...."
>>and so on? PGP-2.1 is much better than PGP-2.0. Let's
>>make it really good now -  GET RID OF THOSE BETRAYING
>>TAGS! NOW!
> 
> I guess you never read the docs. Those "betraying tags" have a purpose
> -- they allow the system to automatically find the beginning and end
> of messages. 

I guess you
	a) are deprived of sense of humor;
	b) have too little experience with real crypto...

> You can feed mail messages into PGP without even
> stripping the headers. 

Ge, thanks for explaining! And I was sure they are there
just to attract feds' attention... Oh, my...

> Its all very well engineered, and the feds can
> tell you are using PGP anyway by looking at the magic numbers in the
> Radix 64 text. 

And what sense would a hexadecimal number prepended to an
encrypted (hexadecimal) data make to an eavesdropper?

> I don't think there is any point in stripping them,
> since it adds no security for you and will make the program a lot more
> inconvenient to use. 

I do, since it can increase security via making it 
"unprovable" that the message is encrypted/created
my PGP. Yes, this will prohibit one from simply
piping the whole message through PGP and 
getting plaintext. Well, it depends
on which concern is bigger - to
have to strip head/tail off
the arriving e-mail,  or
fear to get caught with 
using "guerilla" PGP... (:-)

> Its inconvenient enough already....

It depends. For me, PGP-2.1 is perfectly convenient and nice.
If only it didn't advertise itself so loudly with "---BEGIN"... (:-)

-- 
Regards,
Uri.		uri@watson.ibm.com
------------
<Disclaimer>
Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:220 sci.crypt:5767
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:28:46 -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 1.1fc1

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. 

In fact, model makers *have* gotten called on the carpet in the past.  I 
believe the most famous case was Revell's first model of the SR-71, in which 
they published quite accurate dimensions of the aircraft--those dimensions 
being at the time highly classified.  The Air Force was convinced that they 
had a security leak, until Revell pointed out that they had published an 
overhead photo of the plane on the ground, and that the size of the paving 
squares at the airfield *wasn't* classified :)...

I have found that many people have absolutely no idea how restrictive 
import/export law can be when it covers certain types of technology.  
Cryptographic technology is currently one of those areas, despite recent 
bills proposing to move software-only crypto technology into the domain of 
the Department of Commerce instead of the Department of State.

Though, as I've said before, I oppose restrictions on cryptographic 
technology in general, I do not base that objection on the right to privacy 
or freedom of information, but upon the *second* amendment: the right to keep 
and bear arms.



Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation


Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:133 alt.security:5037 sci.crypt:5599 talk.politics.misc:63862 talk.politics.guns:25083
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: PGP v. 2.1 Released
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:49:40 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:

>Sounds like a good reason to switch from PGP to RIPEM.

Okay, could you please point us to where we can find a PGP-type program
that uses RIPEM?  I would love to not have to even *consider* patent stuff
when using a crypt program.

Ftp sites are preferable!  Thanks.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Xref: sparky alt.security.pgp:241 alt.security:5114 sci.crypt:5793 talk.politics.misc:64679
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PGP 2.1 site list
Keywords: pgp pkzip
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:49:51 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <Bz9FBr.Awn@minerva1.bull.it>, alexb@minerva1.bull.it (Alessandro Bottonelli) writes:

| Having tha same trouble with pgp21.zip from ghost.dsi.unimi.it, david
| (the sysop) swears all checks on his side are OK. Maybe some version
| incompatibility of PKUNZIP ? Any idea out there ?

  Probably this is a good time to switch to the real (ie info-ZIP) unzip
instead of that proprietary stuff. Both the source and exe tested okay
with unzip.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:09:40 -0500 
From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
	<lj33kvINNb8r@cash.cs.utexas.edu>

OK, here's a novel suggestion, which may (or may not) be useful:

What would be the legality of buying a copy of RSA MailSafe, and then
throwing it away and using PGP instead?  If I do that, haven't I paid
for a license to use RSA's patents?  Shouldn't this satisfy RSA and
PKP?  I mean, does the license *really* have to be tied to this one
specific application?

More generally, does PKP have any sort of licensing deal for
*individuals* to make use of public-key technology?  Does anyone know
what PKP's royalty arrangments look like?

Thanks,
--Pat.
Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns