From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Gorges 3 Aug 94 10:24:58 Subject: Dos Error 8! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tuesday July 26 1994, Jim Gorges writes to Shawn K. Quinn: SK>> signatures in it when, SK>> and ONLY WHEN, I tell PGP to remove bad signatures. If I remove the SK>> bad signatures later with the -kc option, no error. I don't have this problem with the OS/2 version. It wont overwrite the file even if you tell it to. You have to specify a temp file to get a bad sig removed. Scott After Clinton, =everyone= looks qualified to be President! Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 PGP fingerprint = 13 D6 FF 43 53 3D 54 7B 94 D0 6B F4 24 13 E5 BD sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org - --- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj+NAiP6qSQmzV0DAQEUFAQAi9VbImE/lEKBaxNLKHYZO482JxhWQNPX O0xRYWYzp2kFfQzW05ad9a7O8lnlYsRdksrlMHYE/dNGY8rJUE+E76J2vc23URn/ Zg4zrlfl17Lyogf/kUeSI8SE7yWZXOSH8l5DGUuh6Gzjl5aIjzQTATo2Ru5kzDhW MTOEa9bhS9I= =YAYt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 3 Aug 94 10:27:10 Subject: On this subject... Sunday July 31 1994, Shawn McMahon writes to Jason Levine: SM> In fact, even if it would have been legal for you to take a shotgun and SM> kill the person, it is *NOT* legal for you to leave one set up to SM> automatically kill him. Even if the trap doesn't kill anyone I would think you could still be charged with criminal negligance just for leaving it set up unattended. Scott Technobabble limit exceeded. Del JARGON.EXE Y/y? Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 PGP fingerprint = 13 D6 FF 43 53 3D 54 7B 94 D0 6B F4 24 13 E5 BD sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Miller Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jess Williams 3 Aug 94 09:53:00 Subject: PGP VOICE JW>it to the modem. The only problem I see with that is the JW>amount of data they produce True, but read on. JW>have a card that has a somewhat narrow bandwidth (3khz) or JW>so. JW>That way there would be less data to produce and you could do JW>it All cards have adjustable sampling rates, you could bring it down to whatever you want, for less data For arguements sake, I did a little test. The average 14400 bps modem can send recieve ZIPed data (the kind PGP likes to use) at about 1600 cps. So what needs to be done is to get 1 second of data into a packet less than 1600 bytes long. I managed to do that using BlasterMaster a program for recording sound. I recorded about five seconds of data, then clipped it into 1 second worth, (In case your wondering, I said Testing 1 2 3). That was recorded at about 8 khz, which sounded better than a telephone. That was about 8413 bytes, still unacceptable for transfer. So then I packed that sound file (in software, not with ZIP), and brought it down to 2521 bytes, a little better, but still not enough (the sound quality diminished a tad too, sounded about as good or a little better than a telephone). Then I PKZiped it, and it was 1570 bytes, just about right. I even sent about a 5 second voc file across the modem, and it averaged about 1630 cps. The problem is now, you need a fast system, or good software, that can process, encrypt, send and recieve at a decent pace. (Imagine how good this could be on an ISDN line) I hope this helped your question! ------------------------------------ Scott PGP v2.6 key available! FREQ PGPKEY ------------------------------------ 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 3 Aug 94 09:18:50 Subject: Net 106 still at it? [Was: New to PGP] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Christopher Baker wrote in a message to Jason Carr: JC> But that would effectively cut off the flow to 106 (houston, I JC> think) where they delete any msg with the string "PGP" in it. CB> they do not deliberately alter or censor mail in Net 106 do CB> they? I have read (in BBSLAW?) that any echomail coming into the 106 area is screened for the string "PGP" and is directed > nul. Truly. Time for a little netmail to find out for sure, I s'pose? But what if they filter NetMail as well... My note would never get there... jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj/D60jhGzlN9lCZAQE0ggQAoCPTkELbzynU/Vyik526+JYQQ83MJrqq wZrfieRomxvglS6K6FCEIBIcW1y3SFKtkzaQ/Gl5GkvSFsEzsS46qyNKMXFwjaab 15xEA8nOFwxuBIMwU0oFSnVkdyM+kybvSaG06TUjCb1Af8OUQRTeLc0KbPkIpvWD ykDXANuUaHk= =Vi1H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ...Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 3 Aug 94 10:42:58 Subject: New to PGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Shawn McMahon wrote in a message to Ryan Shaw: SM> I think my recent articles in the 'snooze, which I've begun SM> signing, make my position pretty clear. Well done, BTW. SM> Sign 'em. Encourage other people to sign 'em. Yes. I sign all direct NetMail and even my sysop notes to users. They eventually ask "what IS that?" and I direct them to a FAQ... :) SM> If some guy SM> writes an article saying he doesn't want to see any more SM> digital signatures, set up your mailer to impersonate him, SM> write an article saying "everyone should toilet-paper my SM> house" and send it to the 'snooze. :-) I must disagree. Mailfraud can get one kicked out of Fido. SM> Moderators own their echoes. If a moderator wants to throw SM> you out for using signatures, it's his right. So sign SM> everything you send in that echo, and if he throws you out SM> start your own echo. Again, we disagree. (It's ok, I'll still buy ya a beer if I ever meet ya :) I say ask the mod if it's ok. If it is, sign everything. If it's not, don't sign. One always has the option of starting one's own area, as you correctly advise. jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLj/YB0jhGzlN9lCZAQELBwP9HNKrC/Sl+7/8NJ+7OSMl5dWWlEsV1mho 6poZ4vuiKnyePR6ZIBoRFRieSfudeZ0+qMvTkbiVwVfvM50rCpkXuhAasTyaRVd3 /+UDJeCYvzDGAdbt5rG+T5fgytD1LXH8DMA6Ynyu0IqkbLk5qCV55TLyq6FbcE1O GjUq0aAXkBM= =96lb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ...Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: [was sent to 106/0] 3 Aug 94 10:55:56 Subject: [request for clarification] --> Note: Copied (from: netmail) by jason carr using timEd. cc: sysop#106/1 Howdy from Irving, Tx. :) I've got a question for ya. I've read in (BBSLAW? MODERATOR?) that Net 106 kills all incoming mail that contains the string "P*G*P." [asterisks included to keep this mail from being cut, if that's the deal] At any rate, I've heard this more than just a couple of times, and wanted to hear the Real Deal straight from you guys so I could set these guys straight. After all, if they're falsely claiming that 106 is censoring mail based on content, that's a pretty ugly black eye you could do without. Please advise me of any policies or procedures that 106 has regarding this topic. Thanks! jason carr sysop, the Penny University (124/3208) moderator, COLLEGE --- timEd-B9 - Hummingbirds never remember the words to songs. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Mark Carter Area: Public Key Encryption To: Reed Darsey 3 Aug 94 01:59:44 Subject: 2.3a vs 2.6 keys Hi Reed. In a msg on , Reed Darsey of 1:3625/441 wrote: RD> (I've seen messages suggesting that all the key revoking and RD> reissuing is wasted effort.) It is. Some people like to occassionally issue a new key, and a new version is as good a time to issue a new key as any. A lot of people simply wasted their own time because of assumed incompatibility, though. Mark 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Mark Carter Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 3 Aug 94 17:31:22 Subject: Re-Post of FixPGP Hi Everyone. Since we're getting closer to the September 1st version byte changeover, I figured now was as good a time as any to re-post Pr0duct Cypher's FIXPGP.COM solution(which is applied to PGP v2.3a), which works very well. Simply run the PGP message in the middle of the message through PGP, and you'll get FIXPGP.COM, which you then run in a directory with a standard distribution v2.3a PGP.EXE, and it patches v2.3a to ignore the version byte, thereby allowing v2.3a to read v2.6 messages. Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp From: nobody@rebma.rebma.mn.org Subject: Fix to make pgp23a 2.6 compatible Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 03:12:23 -0500 X-To: alt.security.pgp.usenet X-Remailed-By: Mr. Nobody Lines: 124 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I found a bug in pgp 2.3a : it's incompatible with pgp 2.6 messages made after September first. Here's the fix, in both uuencode and pgp armored format. Uudecode or pgp-extract this, and you will get a file called fixpgp.com. Go into the directory where your pgp 2.3a DOS executable is (pgp.exe) and run fixpgp. It should print "Done". That's it! 2.3a is now fully compatible with 2.6. If it prints "File error" pgp.exe is either not present or not writable. Fixpgp must be run with pgp.exe in the current directory. Do not run on anything but a virgin copy of the pgp23a for dos distribution. If you compiled it yourself, modify the source as described below. Pr0duct Cypher section 1 of uuencode 4.13 of file FIXPGP.COM begin 644 FIXPGP.COM MN`(]NCL!S2%R*(O8N`!"N0``NH?"S2%R&;1`N0$`NE,!S2%R#;0^S2&T";I.W G` by earlier versions of PGP.) It incidentally shows the GM> problems inherent where, for reasons of establishing trust, GM> the writers of software feel obliged to publish source code, GM> and the embarrassment which can arise when the quality of GM> the coding is thus exposed to scrutiny. Embarrassment is not a problem; program flaws are a problem. False security is a Bad Thing when dealing with things cryptographic. Information, indeed, wants to be free. I hope they continue to publish the sourcecode. jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkCJSEjhGzlN9lCZAQHwuwQAqFF/3R0muaZ7cbcNH78FeG0/lbFhJpKf 4mDjOnFRFE+NmpeFROSwHc0n0ldSUxS8F7Sgac8sIssJ2FgCBs8Tr2IgxljBucG1 QMGbSzNGQ1m5cTI5wW2lOZ82KZSPlnNJuvSlwJGZjJkpLlO7YSn90tIpooYomxiJ 7f7cB7ev0YE= =YUte -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ...Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 5 Aug 94 17:16:42 Subject: PGP 2.6ui I am experiencing a very odd side effect of upgrading to 2.6ui. It wants to write to the pgp directory. I usually keep that on a write-protected floppy. 2.3 never minded the write protection, except when doing key management. Has anyone else noticed this, and if so, found a way around it? I prefer to keep the floppy write protected. Thanks! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718