HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Re: "registering keys"--antithetical to cryptography
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Distribution: wordl
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:23:09 GMT

In <Nov13.223702.62690@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> ld231782@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (L. Detweiler) writes:
>
>(5) The criminal is a criminal not for what he says but for what he
>does!

Unfortunately, not always true!

>It is only a coincidence that overhearing the former may point to the
>latter!  Law enforcement cannot legitimately be based on infringement of 
>basic rights.  (Shall we outlaw communication?  Encryption and communication
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are for practical purposes interchangeable and indistiguishable.)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly!  *ALL* forms of communication (except perhaps telepathy ;-)
are already encoded (that is, *represented* in a symbol-set mutually
understood by sender and receiver).  Does anyone seriously think
that the government *should* or *could* restrict the choice of
symbol-set?  I for one don't believe it can be done; with minimal
effort, I can easily devise a code which allows me to pass any
information I wish to an accomplice, with *no* chance that it
will be understood or even *recognised* as an encoded message
by a third party.
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: markd@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Mark Diamond)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: DES source Code is needed
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:04:37 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

C51885@TRMETU.BITNET writes:

>Hello,
>Could you send me the DES source code (as a C Code) to me, or could
>you tell me, where can I find it .(May be FTP address and directory and file
>names)
>Thanks Ismail Tore.
>E-mail address : C51885 at trmetu.bitnet

"Numerical Recipies in C" which has an accompanying disc has the
complete code in the section on random numbers(!).  NR in Pascal, and 
NR in Fortran are also published by the same authors.


Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.math,comp.theory
From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:05:48 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Followup-To: sci.crypt

>>>>> lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen) (LL) writes:

LL> Surely, it can't be this easy.  I get squeamish whenever I see clocks and
LL> numbers on arguments of this kind.  Is the cardinality of the set of
LL> P algorithms == number of natural numbers? 

The set of all programs is countable. Each program is just a (finite)
string in a programming language (e.g. Turing machines), and the set of
finite strings over a finite alphabet is countable (order the strings
lexicographically).

LL>  Why doesn't Cantor's diagonal
LL> argument crop up somewhere and spoil everything?  (I don't necessarily mean
LL> the original, but an appropriate analog of it).

Why should it?
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl>
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Demons and Ogres
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:21:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov19.060307.14063@colnet.cmhnet.org> res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli) writes:
>Few people I know believe that the erasure of several minutes worth of
>conversation from Nixon's infamous office tapes was accidental, but no one
>can prove otherwise, so legally we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It was proved in court that the 18.5 minute gap was the product of several
(>5?) independent erasures and therefore could not have been an accident.

It was never proved who did the erasing.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4878 alt.privacy:2299 talk.politics.guns:24193
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Question about the Balloons
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:34:57 GMT
Organization: UB


Dr. Denning:  

Do your key registration proposals cover encrypted data stored
in-house by private parties, or do they cover encrypted messages sent
over public common carriers?

In other words, under the proposal, if I encrypt my diary do I have to
register the key?

Or would I only have to register the key if I want to transmit
encrypted messages over some common carrier?


-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))
From: Shawn.K..Quinn@f7550.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn K. Quinn)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: A new encryption problem?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:10:31 -0500

On Nov 13 18:03, All heard the following from Jim Wenzel
(jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us ):

 JW> PGP is  readily available. As  for being my  friend. I have  only
 JW> chatted  electronically with  the man  once and  had someone else
 JW> call to  verify his existance.  I will be  talking to him  again.
 JW> However, if I suggest that they bust the guy for using unlicensed
 JW> software  am I  not in  effect 'pirating'  by allowing  PGP to be
 JW> downloaded?

I cannot be sure if PGP is truly illegal. It really depends on how you interpet
the licensing information. I tried to send him mail and got no reply. Let him
know that skquinn@urchin.fidonet.org is trying to establish contact.

 JW> Normally,  but,  it  is  quite  handy  to  store  sensitive stuff
 JW> personally  as well.  What is  normal for  you may  or may not be
 JW> normal for other folks as well.

Encrypting to one's own public key works wonders. I do that over here myself.
No additional pass phrase to forget either. Of course, you can always create
your own key just for that purpose.

 JW> We can  all stick our  head in the  sand here and  say it won't  /
 JW> shouldn't happen.  The bottom line is  there is maneuvering being
 JW> done now that will greatly effect us.

I will not do so, that is for sure. Whether or not everyone else chooses to is
another matter entirely.

SKQ

 * Origin: Silver Mountain * HOUTX  (1:106/7550)

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller)
Subject: Info-PGP
Keywords: PGP Info-PGP 
Organization: Loyola University Chicago
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:26:11 GMT

    * Info-PGP Digest *

    Info-PGP Digest is a digested mailing list dedicated to discussion of
Philip Zimmermann's `Pretty Good Privacy' (PGP) public-key encryption program
for MS-DOS, Unix, VMS, Atari, Amiga, SPARC, Macintosh, and (hopefully) other
operating systems.  It is primarily intended for users on Internet sites
without access to the `alt.security.pgp' newsgroup.  Most submissions to
alt.security.pgp will be saved to Info-PGP, as well as occasional relevant
articles from sci.crypt or other newsgroups.  Info-PGP will also contain
mailings directed to the list address.
    To SUBSCRIBE to Info-PGP, please send a (polite) note to
info-pgp-request@lucpul.it.luc.edu.  This is not a mailserver; there is a
human being on the other end (at least until further notice), and bodiless
messages with "Subject:" lines reading "SUBSCRIBE INFO-PGP" will be ignored
until the sender develops manners.  To SUBMIT material for posting to
Info-PGP, please mail to info-pgp@lucpul.it.luc.edu.  In both cases, PLEASE
include your name and Internet "From:" address.  Submissions will be posted
pretty well as received, although the list maintainer / moderator reserves the
right to omit redundant messages, trim bloated headers & .sigs, and other such
minor piffle.  I will not be able to acknowledge submissions, nor, I regret,
will I be able to pass posts on to alt.security.pgp for those whose sites lack
access.
    Due to U.S. ITAR export restrictions on cryptographic software, I regret
that I cannot include postings containing actual source code (or compiled
binaries) of crypto routines in Info-PGP issues.  For the time being at least
I am including patches under the same ukase.  I regret having to do this, but
the law is the law.  If a non-US reader would like to handle that end of
things, perhaps run a "Info-PGP-Code" digest or somesuch, maybe this little
problem could be worked around.
    I have received a promise of some space on an anonymous-ftp'able Internet
site for back issues of Info-PGP Digest.  Full details as soon as they firm
up.
    Oh, yes: ALL CONTRIBUTIONS CONSIDERED AS PERSONAL COMMENTS; STANDARD
DISCLAIMERS APPLY.

Hugh Miller       | Asst. Prof. of Philosophy |  Loyola University Chicago
FAX: 312-508-2292 |    Voice: 312-508-2727    |  hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu
 Signed PGP v.2.0 public key certificate available by e-mail & finger(1)


-- 
Hugh Miller         | Dept. of Philosophy | Loyola University of Chicago
Voice: 312-508-2727 |  FAX: 312-508-2292  |    hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:5011 comp.org.eff.talk:7138 alt.privacy:2352 talk.politics.guns:24294
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Risks of Using PGP 2.0
Keywords: legal, patent, export, ITAR
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:04:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) writes:
> DISCLAIMER:
[ deleted -- you know the drill ]
> First, it is illegal to "make, use, or sell" a patented device
> without a license.  PGP's disclaimer does not protect anyone making,
> distributing, or using PGP.  PKP owns the patent and sells licenses
> to companies who want to make and sell products that use RSA and
> other public-key cryptography.

Note that the patents owned by PKP are almost certainly invalid outside the
USA, since they were applied for after publication.  However, if the GATT
agreement is signed such patents will likely become enforcable throughout
Europe.  Mail me for more information about GATT.

>                                PGP is not licensed.  A license to
> the maker of PGP has always been (and still is) available, but it
> would not be free (which would be unfair to other licensees, whose
> licenses were not free).

According to the author of PGP, Philip Zimmermann, PKP have stated that they
will not offer a license to any user of PGP.  (See the PGP manual, volume II,
"Legal Issues".)  Someone is not telling the entire truth.  Who is it?

> Second, PGP may be illegal with respect to US export law.  The
> author states in the documentation that he "guided" its development
> overseas.  This might be construed an export of "technical know-how"
> under the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations).  By
> distributing or using PGP 2.0, you may be involved directly or
> indirectly in an illegal act.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt.  US citizens may have cause for concern, but it
seems implausible to me that the US government would go after people in other
countries who have never imported or exported anything from the US.

> The risks to those actively promoting PGP, and/or distributing it, are
> of course, greater than those for simple users, but even simple users
> would do well to seek an acceptable alternative, such as RIPEM.
> RIPEM is built on a piece of software called RSAREF.  RSAREF contains
> an embedded patent license, and is perfectly legal to use for
> non-commercial purposes.

Weren't you just asking us to check with our corporate lawyers?  What good is
a "non-commercial use only" encryption scheme?  Who decides what is
"commercial" use?

>                               Any software whatsoever can be built on
> RSAREF, even PGP-like programs, and distributed freely.  RSAREF does
> carry strong restrictions on export.

Whereas you can use PGP to communicate with people in other countries.


mathew
-- 
You can communicate with me securely using PGP 2.0.  For more information
send mail to pgp@mantis.co.uk.

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:45:12 GMT


Steve Gardner attempts to dismiss those who object to the thought police
of political correctness with:
"Its a red herring and it is usually used to batter people into
        being silent on issues of racism and sexism."

Baloney! Anybody who has read the many specific examples in "Illiberal
Education" or in Schleschinger's book (no right-winger, he) knows that
this is a serious disease on campuses throughout the country.

Many who are neither racist nor sexist object to this thought policing.
The thought police cannot get away with blaming the victims for their
criminal fascism, no matter how often they repeat this big lie.

-- 
David Sternlight
(pgp 2.0 and ripem public keys available on request)

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Subject: Re: Demons and Ogres
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:34:56 GMT
Reply-To: piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

>>>>> ritter@cactus.org (Terry Ritter) (TR) writes:

>> Nonsense.  My proposal is that, given the ciphertext, the user
>> would be required to make it plain.  This means that there would
>> be a responsibility to log old *keys*, not conversations.

TR>  RSA gives public-key capability, but is slow.  Typically, a
TR>  "public key" cryptosystem will only pass a session key under RSA,
TR>  and then use a faster private-key system to encipher the data.
TR>  Logging the session key would give the ability to recover the
TR>  plaintext at a later date.

So that would make it a criminal offense to have a disk crash?
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.ruu.nl>
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4859 alt.privacy:2294 comp.org.eff.talk:7082
From: leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:11:16 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Organization: Rutgers University Department of Computer Science

On the effect of cryptography on crimes like insider trading:

	- There is one recent case on point.  Several major airlines
		were accused of colluding to fix prices.  They
		communicated by posting various articifical prices on
		the computerized reservation systems.  (The prices were
		"artificial" in that they were deliberately limited to
		such a small number of seats that they would have no
		significant impact.  What would happen is that one airline
		would post such a price as a proposal, and another would
		either respond by meeting the price - at which point the
		first would make the price widely available - or would
		refuse to respond, at which point the first would let the
		special offer expire.)

		This came out some time over the summer, as best I recall.
		I think the airlines agreed in a consent order that they
		wouldn't do anything like this, while denying they ever had.

	- The effect of anonymous re-forwarders, mixes, and such like things:
		I doubt they will have any significant effect, because I'm
		willing to bet that they will soon be outlawed.  Just as
		BBS's have found that it's extremely dangerous to provide
		unknown people with the ability to use them anonymously,
		the providers of forwarding services will, too.  Wait for
		the first case of anonymous slander through a forwarder.  Or
		the first widespread anonymous posting through a forwarder
		of viciously racist material.  Or of an extortion letter.

		A fundamental premise of the legal system is accountability.
		If you act to shield others from accountability, and they do
		something reprehensible, YOU will be called to task.

		(And don't quote the recent Compuserve case to me.  Compuserve
		isn't responsible for policing what is transmitted over its
		network - but it had better be reasonably able to identify who
		its customers are, if they use Compuserver for an illegal
		purpose.)

							-- Jerry
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: mch@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca (Mark C. Henderson)
Subject: Re: Public Key Patents
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Surrey, British Columbia, CANADA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:18:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.034123.22748@meiko.com> philip@meiko.com (Philip Gladstone) writes:
>ken@halcyon.com (Ken Pizzini) writes:
>: Which makes the the RSA patent even more absurd -- foreign nationals
>: get to use RSA for free while US taxpayers, who helped fund the
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^
>: research, have to pay royalties!
>
>Actually, for RSAREF, you need to be more than a US taxpayer -- you
>need to be a US citizen resident in the US. 

or a permanent resident in the U.S. actually resident in the U.S.,
or a Canadian citizen resident in Canada.

Mark
-- 
Mark Henderson, SoftQuad Inc, 108-10070 King George Hwy, Surrey, B.C. V3T 2W4
Internet:  markh@wimsey.bc.ca, mch@sqwest.wimsey.bc.ca, mch@holonet.net
UUCP: {van-bc,sq}!sqwest!mch Telephone: +1 604 585 8394  Fax: +1 604 585 1926
RIPEM public key available by Email/finger mch@holonet.net/keyserver
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk (Russell Earl Whitaker)
Subject: Re: Where is PGP 2.0? 
Distribution: world
Organization: Extropy Institute
Reply-To: whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:34:58 +0000


In article <17641@mindlink.bc.ca> Marc_North@mindlink.bc.ca writes:

>Can someone point me to an FTP site where I can get PGP 2.0? I don't need the
>source code, but that would be nice if available.
>
>Thanks,
>Marc North

Try also gate.demon.co.uk: /pub/ibmpc/pgp/pgp20.zip.  There are other
interesting files there, too.

-- 

Russell Earl Whitaker                   whitaker@eternity.demon.co.uk
Communications Editor                       71750.2413@compuserve.com
EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought         AMiX: RWHITAKER
Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI)
================ PGP 2.0 public key available =======================
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: Attack Methods
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: lwloen@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article I wrote:

>Now, in the ordinary course of business, there will be several messages
>of the same length.  There may well be unique messages that have no
>one of the same length, but we start with those of the same length.  
>What follows will tend to work even if the length of the real texts vary;
>the only issue of interest is that the overall length is the same and that
>the transposition step is performed _after_ the padding.

It would have been better written as:

"Now, in the ordinary course of business, there will be several messages
of the same length which share the same cipher key.  In a real, working
example, it is impractical for all messages to have their own key.
There may well be unique messages that have no other message
with the same length, but we start with those of the same length.  
What follows will tend to work even if the length of the real texts vary;
the only issue of interest is that the overall length is the same and that
the transposition step is performed _after_ the padding."

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Prime search, sequential or random better?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:23:52 GMT


A while back I remember a discussion on searching for a large prime where
it was stated that it is better (and I cannot remember why) to randomly
generate candidates rather than just randomly selecting a starting
point and searching incrementally.  Can anyone refresh me why that is
true and how important it is?

Thanks,

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts


               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: URNG
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:53:00 GMT

I've seen a lot of discussion here about Unpredictable Random Number
Generators as apposed to statistically reliable random number generators
and I am interested in seeing a URNG.  Could someone post (or e-mail)
a formula/code/algorithm/description of an Unpredictable RNG?  I'm not
asking for all of the above, one would be all I need.

Thanks in advance.

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4858 comp.org.eff.talk:7081
From: leichter@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: A Silver Bullet to Limit Crypto?
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:52:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.crypt
Distribution: inet
Organization: Rutgers University Department of Computer Science

In article <1e0vrvINNr3t@transfer.stratus.com>, cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com
(Carl Ellison) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.202330.22580@cactus.org> ritter@cactus.org (Terry
Ritter) writes:
||
|| Inevitably there must be limits to all rights.  What are the limits
|| on the individual's right to secrecy?
||
| What are the limits on an individual's right to keep a thought inside
| his own head?
| 
| I would assume that there are no limits to that right.
| 
The thing that makes this whole debate so frustrating is that the same point
has to be made again, and again, and again.

Carl, you are wrong.  You can assume anything you like about the privacy of
the thoughts in your own head, but no such privacy right has ever existed,
in the US or anywhere else I know of.  What we hav in the US is a right not
to be forced to testify against yourself.  Every thought in your head on any
other subject is in bounds.  You can be compelled to testify as to your know-
ledge of matters of fact, as to your opinions, as to your likes and dislikes,
so long as they are held by a court to be relevent to its business at hand,
and do not serve to incriminate you.

Sure, you can lie.  You can claim you "don't remember".  Maybe you'll get
away with it; maybe you'll be convicted of perjury.  The same is true of
stealing cars.

Always keep in mind that conviction requires a prosecuter to convince a jury
of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you lied.  "Beyond a reasonable
doubt" is not mathematical certainty.  To take a trivial example, you can of
course claim in court that you don't remember your mother's name.  It's quite
true that no one can read your mind and know with certainty that you haven't
somehow forgotten it.  But if it comes to a jury, you'd better have something
stronger than your simple claim (like, you were adopted and no one ever told
you the name - but then why did you say you don't REMEMBER it, rather than
that you don't KNOW it?) or you WILL be convicted.
							-- Jerry
Newsgroups: sci.crypt