From: Jim Bell Area: Public Key Encryption To: DAVID CHESSLER 9 Nov 94 18:13:00 Subject: Pgp 2.6.2 official m.i.t. UpdReq -=> Quoting David Chessler@1:109/459 to Jim Bell <=- DC> On 10-26-94 (21:51), Jim Bell, in a message to Christopher Baker DC> about "PGP 2.6.2 OFFICIAL M.I.T.", stated the following: JB>Also: The government currently approves certain (weak) encryption >programs for export. What if somebody slightly modified a version of >PGP to include a single line EQUate that sets the maximum number of bits >in the key to, say, 40. JB>Exported legally, the number would then simply be changed to 2048 and >recompiled, returning the program to full functionality. DC> Do you think the Government is that stupid? They allow such exports DC> only if it can't be reconverted easily, and only if it's exported in DC> object code only. They, themselves, may not be "stupid." However, they may be required to express their rules for making the decision in writing. Once written down, it is generally possible to find an exception to the rules to achieve the desired result. If, for example, the "rules" said that source code written on paper is legal, the "simple" solution is to print out that source code and export the paper, scanning the paper outside the country and re-generating the source elsewhere. Or, if the "rules" merely prohibit sending source code out on magnetic tape or disk, find some program that writes one- or (even better) two-dimensional bar codes on paper. It would make the re-generation of the code even easier. ... Way Too Much is Not Nearly Enough. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Carl Hudkins Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 8 Nov 94 19:25:16 Subject: GOP vs. Clipper...? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hey... Even though I would rather have seen my party keep control of the legislative branch (home-team kind of thing :) I am hoping that since the Republicans say they are against "big government" they will help put Clipper in the pine box where it belongs. Does anybody have any educated info on this? carlBoca Chica, Floridacarl.hudkins@lunatic.com RIME>1282PGP: 2D1E1E39Fido: 1:135/808.1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Would you send mail without an envelope? iQCVAwUBLsBd0L5BFpotHh45AQEFaQP9FQDJgpN4LZ60tAGn6XGpvYEC0oTC5ruU u2FUVbo/r9/LKScCwEoJ6HYvlVyaPqTPHkiHPNFLd/ti0NfPWVLW3CSha8KBaxTY DLA4+E1wCxHuaxktSCENTAFDi9rJcHd2VeCkkrBVNERAfGN1/kxtCls4tbbS0vwj 3qaCRUsO4XQ= =WB4i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 9 Nov 94 10:26:38 Subject: Hpack KEYCVT UpdReq Shawn McMahon wrote in a message to All: SM> Has anybody actually gotten KEYCVT to work on your 1024-bit SM> PGP keys? Whass it s'posed to do? jason ... There are 2 ways to handle women and I know neither. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Marc Stuart Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ian Lin 8 Nov 94 01:39:00 Subject: PGP embedded binaries UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- MS> The version I found only handled TIFs, and I could plainly see the MS> change in the TIF file. I couldn't read the message, but I knew MS> something was there. IL> That's quite a bit of trouble to go to. I found you can add extra info IL> to ARJ files, and many other archivers, and never notice it during IL> normal use of that archiver file with the program that uses it. If you Umm, people do that all of the time, but it isn't really hidden info now, is it? Besides, we were discussing stegonography. What exactly was your point? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLr8dKJ0oU3J5RriBAQH4eQP/TkA+xiJMCJpdQCS41cEf/i7nuGmzu9uy w7Z+wKhyNtkyw75/aytFGZ6yz2Bl0nrrAvAfwTG/riya0GYUfIdXxAGEWjls7xAn WtjBv5Cs7RtcKxMecEmzCVflTOPOtyaMiUnrd5BuW2KFeXg7re7VVbdTqlb9PKvN 4Zi3TyvsiUE= =VdbJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ PGPBLUE 3.0 ... For a man of fortitude, there are no walls, only avenues. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: John Stephenson Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 10 Nov 94 16:19:40 Subject: PGP versions UpdReq IL> And how do you feel about PGP 2.3a? That's what I use. I don't IL> trust the 2.6+ versions but I do have 2.6ui to pretend it's IL> any version. SM> I'm curious; how come you trust Phil Zimmerman's word SM> about 2.3a, but you don't trust his word about later versions? I'm curious about something.. I've heard that RSAREF is simply another method of using RSA, but it's a slower alogrythm.. It didn't kick in for a while but whoever said that is wrong, or else RSAREF could decode, and encode to RSA -- which of course is false. So, what truely IS the difference between RSA & RSAREF? I know that RSAREF has been tested less throughly, but what about the actual alog.? - John 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ian Lin 9 Nov 94 16:11:26 Subject: legal PGP UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Ian! 05 Nov 94 12:41, Ian Lin wrote to Christopher Baker: IL> I'd rather stick with 2.3a. It seems a lot of people are. Do you have any reason, besides just that "a lot" of others are using PGP 2.3a, to restrict yourself from communicating with anyone who uses a newer, bugfixed, version? =) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/322@fidonet.org * wjl@dstorm.jd.com * * UUCP: nosc!jadpc!dstorm!wjl * PGP Key: C0E9A805 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.61 iQCVAwUBLsFloAUBVGzA6agFAQEr7QQAo1kAJdjlpdi5A5Ve9tD+Ml9ECRCSxoCX rFbGDQqCNTcDUzEC6D5viVFX+MrnifXhZPjuSoT4ZjW6VdO/V88y+kIA0RgD7ZXl 1+jEEIzCoUTGnKlMzwg2IIDpWnFtzaHXU32/+HGEMDUL4NPVrDbvWcGbVBldO6kb 63aeLc2UshY= =jd8v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Glen Todd 9 Nov 94 16:19:56 Subject: PGP and GoldEd UpdReq Hello Glen! 04 Nov 94 22:01, Glen Todd wrote to All: GT> EXTERNUTIL 1 c:\pgp\pgp.exe +force -sat @file "@dname" "@oname" GT> -u "@oname" -o @file <-+-Wrapped GT> This seems to cause the GoldEd message file to be overwritten GT> with a null length file _before_ PGP starts, resulting in a GT> message containing a PGP signature but no message text. I've GT> tried various batch file configurations, but haven't been able to GT> figure out how to pass whitespace-containing user IDs in the GT> batch files. Any suggestions out there? You have to output to a different file (pgp.tmp or something arbitrary like that), then copy that file back to whatever @file is. :) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/322@fidonet.org * wjl@dstorm.jd.com * * UUCP: nosc!jadpc!dstorm!wjl * PGP Key: C0E9A805 * FREQ: PGPKEY * 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Marc Stuart Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Miller 10 Nov 94 21:33:00 Subject: Signing keys (or anything) UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- SM> True, that was one of my worst days this year. I formally apologize. Very well. Accepted. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLsLX650oU3J5RriBAQGs8AQArt8LNFYnXGx6xSp2rl7q0vAcMbRFkpd7 istNX79M+Du1XmQ9iD0qaDw93riwr+1yP+hW6XJ/5sri2t0ssLPcJkmQVPU7L9l6 TaS7+9lq39IubCCEpncuMQhnFkB+Z5LaVr4yYZpEba8VrWU7tjt7ELaG2Gfp/E4G beCZ3AIkd4Y= =cFwz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ PGPBLUE 3.2 ... God's OK; it's his fan club that scares me. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Joe Eversole Area: Public Key Encryption To: Dan Mlodecki 5 Nov 94 11:47:00 Subject: Legal Pgp UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- DM> The following message can only be read by: DM> 0x3FC7D81D DM> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- (Need secret key to decrypt message) Excuse me, but what's the point in encryping a public message? Joe Eversole , SysOp - HearthStone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: SecureMail Net Hub, Route PGP mail for Net 231 through 1:231/1400! iQCVAwUBLrseQuFwJfuHmTMdAQEIAQQAnkQsGLMQFrVVmauhXOM4meLKI+rincrV wABgCDZgSBhtoq/kGNRiTiW39uv7tyKzoWoxefBZx/FcUVd2Lu+WDt+HxNq+FAh8 t6Y83HCvOow1QS4nqmnmhoa6Meed4ewMwARhbAX1qplsiIV8xX9mlTSfETFwxZjJ Ooq4iH/KoDU= =DAKf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * RM 1.4 B1371 * "Bother," said Pooh as he fell off the prostitute 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: jason carr 11 Nov 94 11:21:00 Subject: Hpack KEYCVT UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, jason carr said this to Shawn McMahon: SM>> Has anybody actually gotten KEYCVT to work on your 1024-bit SM>> PGP keys? jc> Whass it s'posed to do? Appends some extra stuff onto the end of your key, so that Hpack can use it as well as PGP. After you do that, Hpack can use your digital signature to sign the archive, and other people can encrypt Hpack archives with your public key so that only you can unarchive them. Great stuff, when KEYCVT works. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718