From: Mark Drew Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 9 Feb 95 09:35:00 Subject: Re: Edit Trust UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting Christopher Baker to Mark Drew <=- CB> - -ke is a multi-level command so you have to stage thru it CB> till you find the applicable part you need. Thanks to everybody who responded to my post. My basic problem with trying to edit the trust level on a useid on my pubring was that I was practising on a useid of someone who is also on my secring. PGP was offering me the correct and obvious options, I was basically "playing" around and was too intent on doing what I was trying to accomplish to realized that PGP was responding corrrectly and as it should. When using -ke, if the useid is on the secring, than you MUST want to edit either the name or pass phase; if the useid is on only the pubring, than you MUST want to edit the trust factor. Obvious, simple and straight foreward, you just have to have your brain in gear! Sorry for having posted before I thought about it :-). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLzoyM5TeAMV8DT+pAQFb6gQAnjzxLYGyusHI/aW7rR3+E09aEOGCQgJY DMMOjcAxEH4Jl948Tqen8cQq6MGlCvt1dD+ecgPvSDaNMTiu+n6p81mPgDoArmOn ih+cD00n0pVLxQEZcFjYgkcH3ZRPZ36u3GznP3Y5y6unBQivHONHs8Gh57eIZIgo CqgbWfbz0tc= =Y2sf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Bill Brown Area: Public Key Encryption To: Mark Drew 8 Feb 95 16:19:06 Subject: Edit Trust UpdReq Hello Mark, Monday February 06 1995 11:51, Mark Drew wrote to All: MD> How do I edit the trust level of a public key on my public key ring? MD> The DOCs say to execute 'PGP -ke useid ' Correct. (ignoring typo) MD> but that asks for the userid's pass phase as if they were were MD> going to edit their own public/secure key What version of PGP are you using. With 2.62, using -ke will tell me that it found a hit on whatever userid I provided and then "No secret key available. Editing public trust parameter." before going on to do so. If I were to attempt to edit the public key of someone who has the SAME userid segment as a key on my secret ring, it would of course do as you say and ask for my passphrase. Try looking in your SECRET keyring to find if there is a key there with the same userid segment as you used above. PGP -kv userid-from-earlier D:\PGP\SECRING.PGP Be sure to substitute the correct drive and path (and name?) for your secret keyring and of course whatever userid you'd been trying to edit earlier. Let us know if that produces any hits. Bill Brown 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Bill Brown Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Dale 8 Feb 95 16:37:08 Subject: Unauthorized Entry UpdReq Hello Richard, Tuesday February 07 1995 12:06, Richard Dale wrote to Armando Ortiz: AO>> * o - Your mailing address AO>> * (Sorry, no P.O. Boxes accepted, please include City, AO>> * State, Zip, and if any, Apartment #'s) RD> Sounds interesting, but what does some of this stuff have to do RD> with the price of beans in China? I use a PO Box, period. This RD> may put me out of the running, but that's the way it is. Sounds RD> a wee bit fishy to me. And I would have to agree with you. I've used the same PO Box for the past decade and a half, at least. There's no software that will change that. Of course, the request for my home phone number is also too fishy for my tastes. Bill Brown 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Nolan Lee Area: Public Key Encryption To: David McIntyre 9 Feb 95 10:44:14 Subject: Re: version for Linux UpdReq On Feb 02 09:48 95, David McIntyre of 1:3625/441 wrote: NL>> Has anyone ported PGP 2.6.2 to Linux? DM> Yes, I have. I just got the freely-available source and DM> followed the instructions to an easy compile. As of yet, I haven't been able to find the sorce for 2.6.2. ;-( thanks, Nolan 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Gordon Campbell Area: Public Key Encryption To: mark lewis 8 Feb 95 13:51:04 Subject: Key UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On (30 Jan 95) mark lewis wrote to Gordon Campbell... GC> also was silly enough to not have a backup ring. Therefore, GC> I can't revoke it. If anyone has KeyID D0B18F11 on their GC> ring, please DISABLE it and replace it with the following GC> key: ml> uh, dude... what's this?? i sure looks like a revoke to me? is this ml> really you? Yep, it's me. Being sloppy. I goofed with the KeyID's on my posting. D0B18F11 was my old 1024 bit key, which did get revoked. KeyID 8AA8033D is actually the one that I should have been asking to have disabled. :-( I'll put the correct information in PKEY_DROP. Cheers, .....G -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i Comment: Help! Help! The paranoids are after me! iQCVAwUBLzkSwoomCDt60qk9AQFXVwQAntwggMCGJTW3Sv/b3DJ6wQ1ww/nY/6j+ RL2TtQ27eqO4Hgm0O5XkIstDqhCZ0tI84TWD7FgD8mKamMUDAdeQQZfauYpYRNHl K97K3qeo0kCy7J0TS3+9Uj9Qrh9eNk6bRLqTn8aBO5BvXMm/i2/eEr1hAYWE/vRi Tu8WOQ+72ts= =ceYx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... It wasn't me, I didn't do it, and besides it was an accident. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: tcmay@netcom.netcom.com Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 9 Feb 95 12:49:34 Subject: Zimmermann charges NOT dropped UpdReq * Original Message Posted via CYPHERPUNKS * Date: 05 Feb 95 21:04:57 * From: tcmay@netcom.netcom.com @ 1:102/825.111 * To: All * Forwarded by: Christopher Baker @ 1:374/14 * Message text was not edited! @MSGID: 1:102/825.111 000483de @REPLYTO 1:102/825 UUCP @REPLYADDR tcmay@netcom.netcom.com @PID GIGO+ sn 154 at borderlin vsn 0.99 pl3 @Sender: quake!toad.com!owner-cypherpunks @Received: from relay2.UU.NET by netcomsv.netcom.com with ESMTP (8.6.9/SMI-4.1) @ id VAA10877; Sun, 5 Feb 1995 21:14:35 -0800 @Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP @ id QQybwe17338; Mon, 6 Feb 1995 00:12:35 -0500 @Received: by toad.com id AA06772; Sun, 5 Feb 95 21:06:23 PST @Received: from netcom14.netcom.com by toad.com id AA06766; Sun, 5 Feb 95 21: 06:15 PST @Received: by netcom14.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) @ id VAA19605; Sun, 5 Feb 1995 21:04:57 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Message-Id: <199502060504.VAA19605@netcom14.netcom.com> @Subject: Zimmermann charges NOT dropped @To: cypherpunks@toad.com Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 21:04:57 -0800 (PST) Cc: tcmay@netcom.netcom.com, prz@acm.org @In-Reply-To: <199502052059.MAA08492@netcom8.netcom.com> from "Timothy C. May" at Feb 5, 95 12:59:09 pm @Mime-Version: 1.0 @Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII @Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com @Precedence: bulk Charges against Phil Zimmermann have apparently NOT been dropped, and Zimmermann's legal team is still in high gear. Proving once more that things said or asked on this list often--even usually--find their way to the persons mentioned, Phil called me today to ask further about what I'd heard from Drew Taubman and to explain that as of Friday, when Phil Dubois, Phil's lawyer, spoke to the prosecutor in the case, the case had not been dropped. Or if it was, the lead attorney and his client were not told. (My discussion with Drew was at 10 p.m., Wednesday, Monte Carlo time.) So, it appears that my source was either incorrect, or wires got crossed in some way. (Or that EFF has access of a kind that seems farfetched.) Phil speculated that Drew was speaking about the LaMacchia case, of several weeks back. This is unlikely, as the LaM. case was a separate discussion we had, specific mention was made that the news was very recent, happening within a few days of our conversation, and that Senator Leahy would be incorporating changes based on the PRZ case situation into legislation on telephony and expert being planned. In any case, it seemingly is just not the case that charges have been dropped (or that plans to file them have been dropped). Anyway, my apologies. I sometimes think I am talking to the 20-30 of you who post regularly, and can thus feel free to ask about a report I've heard. But, as Hal Finney and others have also discovered, this is not the case...boundaries are changing in cyberspace. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: dubois@csn.org Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 9 Feb 95 12:49:46 Subject: Zimmermann UpdReq * Original Message Posted via CYPHERPUNKS * Date: 07 Feb 95 15:00:15 * From: dubois@csn.org @ 1:102/825.111 * To: All * Forwarded by: Christopher Baker @ 1:374/14 * Message text was not edited! @MSGID: 1:102/825.111 0004aa28 @REPLYTO 1:102/825 UUCP @REPLYADDR dubois@csn.org @PID GIGO+ sn 154 at borderlin vsn 0.99 pl3 @Sender: quake!toad.com!owner-cypherpunks @Received: from relay2.UU.NET by netcomsv.netcom.com with ESMTP (8.6.9/SMI-4.1) @ id PAA17241; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:11:05 -0800 @Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP @ id QQyccq17417; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:08:01 -0500 @Received: by toad.com id AA13274; Tue, 7 Feb 95 15:00:31 PST @Received: from teal.csn.org by toad.com id AA13267; Tue, 7 Feb 95 15:00:20 PST @Received: by teal.csn.org id AA20868 @ (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for cypherpunks@toad.com); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:00:16 -0700 From: "Philip L. Dubois" Message-Id: <199502072300.AA20868@teal.csn.org> @Subject: Zimmermann @To: cypherpunks@toad.com Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:00:15 -0700 (MST) @Mime-Version: 1.0 @Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII @Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com @Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Many of you know that members of Philip Zimmermanns defense team traveled recently to San Jose to meet with the Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) assigned to the Zimmermann investigation. This was done for the purpose of persuading the AUSA not to indict. In the hope of avoiding speculation and misinformation, I write now to report that the meeting was cordial, that the AUSA listened carefully and agreed to consider our arguments, and that we dont know when a decision will be made. The defense effort continues and remains in need of financial support. Before the trip to San Jose, one generous person donated a plane ticket from his own frequent-flyer miles. This contribution was timely and much appreciated and shows a way for people to contribute without digging into their pocketbooks. More travel will be necessary during the next month or two, and if there is an indictment, a great deal of travel will be necessary. Any new contributions, including plane tickets, will be received with gratitude. It may seem odd, given the nature of the case, that the defense effort does not have its own Web page, ftp site, or other electronically-accessible source of information. Keep in mind that youre dealing with a lawyer who tends not to do things without considerable deliberation. The investigation has only been going on for two years. Im working on it. Government investigators may seek to interview people. It would be helpful to us to hear from such people. The government is not required to, and will not, tell us what its up to. Our only source of information is people whove been questioned. There is nothing wrong with such folks telling us about their interviews, and it helps us a great deal. I therefore ask that anyone who has been approached and/or interviewed by any federal investigator about Mr. Zimmermann contact me. My email is dubois@csn.org, my phone is 303-444-3885, and my mail address is 2305 Broadway, Boulder, CO, 80304-4132. Ill close by offering thanks. Mr. Zimmermann and I very much appreciate the warm reception we were accorded by the Cypherpunks while we were in California. And we are deeply grateful for all your generous contributions of financial and other support. Your appreciation of the importance of Mr. Zimmermanns case to the wider causes of privacy and individual liberty is encouraging. Philip L. Dubois Lawyer for Philip Zimmermann -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.7 iQCVAwUBLze+ebZ7C+AHeDONAQGJbgP9EMCSSQa0nEx2Tyb15IRei4JT3snpui1p nwrfmeXHLMawsXeUqCbsrZPgo6CJMHryiy/2dAMc+jc4KwUSuNudWZ9wbPGWALUg PNKlfpGi/3i7Fa+sE/RcR32PQ3vXixk6vYNHMV/mx/ZpjV4pLb31UgHhnjgDuKjv 73t8Klg8D6I= =lQdU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jeffrey Bloss 9 Feb 95 20:33:48 Subject: comment line [Was: Re: PassPhrase] UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 05 Feb 95, Jeffrey Bloss was quoted as saying: JB> JB> comment=" YOUR COMMENT HERE " JB> JB> The comment must be in quotes, and I'm not sure of the JB> specifics of CB> quotes are not required unless you want quote marks to appear in CB> your comment. JB> Yes and no... we should BOTH double check ourselves before posting JB> so-called "expert" information. i find no reference anywhere in any of the docs to the comment line parameters where quotes accomplish anything. JB> The quotes aren't necessary unless you want to "right justify" your JB> comment like I do. Without them, the leading spaces are ignored JB> and the comment is justified one space to the right of the JB> "Comment:" string. your comment line is in the same place as mine. are you sure about this? JB> The quote marks do not show in the appended quote though... have you tried double quotes? where did you pick up this info? JB> Version: 2.6.2 JB> Comment: -=[ Privacy Through Random Acts Of Encryption ]=- your previous one did not move over. weird. thanks, for the info. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP 2.6.2 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLzrCgMsQPBL4miT5AQGEjQP/ZHz24YbqnlMvmwR8r7UtRWM+TBDf3CK5 hElUink52Yp4/xS3DFTxMLCGHrQNneVBVELSC50RtaVFQoaITgYzM/uLO6yL2+HT CP8ULrQGdSzeMwOUzOWVEwPdEv8IIUStlpnnn2DLACPTGSLVtlJ3yhHcHA+cGk1P ZLywTkrXj5s= =W6wf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jeffrey Bloss 9 Feb 95 20:35:48 Subject: you've got a lot of dupes in here, too [Was: Re: PassPhrase]UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 05 Feb 95, Jeffrey Bloss was quoted as saying: JB> I have mine in quotes and they don't show in the added comment. JB> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- JB> Version: 2.6.2 JB> Comment: -=[ Privacy Through Random Acts Of Encryption ]=- it's also not right justified. i'll experiment with it locally. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP 2.6.2 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLzrC98sQPBL4miT5AQGQIwQAvEt34EnkvVE20ntTDauiJq/QOJYVvi8H Hh6pECCJHnZUwRC3QUgUTXY1mv02tPIj5KDFwTrim5CEc6wo9Njt3YIaWQZ+IwE8 xhwjFOylNInHobALhTf8YDji53PzmajGglozA5pPVGl6aY+ZRuk7we5fC4DFSyxC /l6xs1ygJwY= =+NOh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jeffrey Bloss 9 Feb 95 21:03:00 Subject: Re: PassPhrase UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeffrey Bloss wrote in a message to Christopher Baker: JB> The quotes aren't necessary unless you want to "right JB> justify" your comment like I do. Without them, the leading ... JB> Comment: -=[ Privacy Through Random Acts Of Encryption JB> ]=- Nicely done, BTW. Although my editor ate it, the justification to the right side of the sig block looks very clean. I may have to adopt that feature. :) jason ... Barnum was wrong, it's more like every 30 seconds. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP_ECHO: CypherEcho to the gods... iQCVAwUBLzrz/kjhGzlN9lCZAQHU/wQAg7nVsDT0UgLx95HOBwHbvWJ8ygbPcxj7 4LqtfzcDNE1kVW9kDYecwWH3ksx5k4kljixXzINro68NTaaLqxYjakuwyB7dHOX9 69ooY5ErtB9wwP7rt8xvawkrU8CcXw/4WiXLSW3WW28Ew6UbDv0EWhr1sJkI8QJ9 5CXMv3TH9Ro= =N5xr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Chris Adams Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 2 Feb 95 23:23:28 Subject: PGP News 2 UpdReq On (29 Jan 95) Shawn McMahon wrote to Chris Adams... CA> I was exagerating. I'd just like, say, 16k bits, or 8 times more. It CA> would be slow, SM> Chris, you seem to be under the impression that making the key twice as SM> long makes it take twice as long to generate. Most assuredly not. I realize that it is exponential. I also realize that computer speed is going up at a similar rate! What takes about 10 seconds on my 386 w/o a coprocessor takes considerably less on, say, a P90. A PPC620 wouldn't even pause... CA> but most of the public key stuff is used to encrypt the CA> IDEA session key, and IDEA carries the load, so it would CA> need to be augmented as well. SM> Why do you think IDEA needs to be "augmented?" Just increase it as computing power becomes available. However, someone else posted that IDEA couldn't be increased, and was equivelent to a LARGE public key. ... Why would anyone want to be a sysop? Fame? Fortune? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Alan Pugh 8 Feb 95 03:26:38 Subject: Can I Freq Pgp? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Friday February 03 1995, Alan Pugh writes to Richard Dale: AP>> *it. in the rtkba echo, you can't even send a signed message because AP>> *the moderator is paranoid that there may be some kind of message AP>> *hidden in the key. RD>> RD>> Is that the one where his initials are BK? AP> you got it. worst paranoia of encryption i've ever seen. Not even close to the worst case. Go over to DR_DEBUG and post a message with even a PGP fingerprint in it and see what happens. The co-mod there wanted my access yanked because I kept posting "encrypted" messages. Scott *Wench: What you use to turn the head of a dolt. Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 For my PGP key freq PGPKEY sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLziA9SP6qSQmzV0DAQFONgP9EQM0GTa+pQqYNv7wbsqQNkV+nIaDuQgG pXh9QguD07HJCNK2vQrM4hC42Z0GV6DA5GXZS0Uu4cBptCrqsfMl5X5MB7I2iAW5 kA6DSvoRBZ9SNiaaJ3I3j3T4SxU92FCg8dGg2ZP2o2l4qHI/QMhPE0zoIBW96JN9 DzCoBEmtMfs= =LQOv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 10 Feb 95 13:09:22 Subject: Quotes as passphrase UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, David Chessler said this to Jim Bell: DC> Some of the authors of secure erasing utilities make similar claims. Peter Gutmann has various things to say on the subject. I'll be using some quotes in this, but I'm working from memory instead of looking up the references so take it with a grain of salt. The much-publicized "government standards for erasing information," which involve multiple overwrites with various patterns, were meant for erasing RAM, not hard drives. The actual government standard, according to Gutmann, "probably involves concentrated acid, belt sanders, etc." Others tell me that the government doesn't even TRY to erase hard drives with sensitive information. They stick 'em in a warehouse, under armed guard. I suspect Gutmann is closer to the truth. I know from personal experience, however, that machines important enough to have a security card placed in them requiring a password on bootup often get transferred to other government departments, with a lot less security, with the hard drives not even reformatted. I've seen machines come out of GSA with large pornography collections, pirated (I presume) games, personal information about the staff of entire departments, personal letters (including from a married man to his mistress co-worker) and lots of other juicy stuff. Some of these machines appear to have had their cases locked closed and a security card in them. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718