April 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

800 number -- Clipper poll
by Mike Godwin 04 May '93

04 May '93

Article 17194 (12 more + 1 Marked to return) in comp.org.eff.talk: From: JHIUOT&)(a)p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (JHIUOT&)) Subject: Clipper poll Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 12:00:09 PDT Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/70.918 - No Montgomery Co Ba, Rockville MD Lines: 14 Communications Week magazine has a weekly telephone response poll. This week's question is: Do you agree with the Clinton administration's Public Encryption Management dire ctive for communications equipment? Yes: 800-242-CWKY No: 800-242-CWKN -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!109!70.918!JHIUOT&) Internet: JHIUOT&)(a)p918.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org

4 3

Need some Advice
by v20177＠vax1.cc.uakron.edu 03 May '93

03 May '93

Hello All My question is what is the diff. between a Software Eng. & Computer Sci. degree. Some of my profs say that they don't know of any schools offer a BS in Software Eng. If that is the case then why do people use that term? Or is it a Masters degree or something like that? I also would like to thank Eric Hughes for replying to my early question on Q&A a dos database problem. His basic steps solved the problem in less 30 min. By the way the algorithm used very lame. abs(ascii character - 255) I would like a little more info on the debugger method. Has anyone the address to MircoSystems Management magazine, I need the April 93 issue, but unable to find it local. Thanks in advance. Red :) <on.......................... <ornts188(a)ksuvxb.kent.edu> typo above

3 2

Re: Tough Choices: PGP vs. RSA Data Security
by Sy Verpunc 01 May '93

01 May '93

A better course of action might be to remove the RSA engine from PGP and distribute the source code, and a binary for free, but require users to pay $30-50 to RSA to get the source code and binary for the RSA engine. Thats what people have *always wanted* to do. RSA won't let them. That's why any talk of a newer friendlier Bizdos is bullshit. G

5 4

validity of the RSA patent
by Eric Hughes 01 May '93

01 May '93

Plenty of people gripe about PKP patents. Assume for the sake of argument that the patents will be upheld, that they are valid. What, exactly, is claimed? The RSA patent claims the RSA cryptosystem. So we don't use that. The Diffie-Hellman-Merkle patent claims all of public key cryptography; in particular it claims knapsack algorithms. So we don't use knapsacks. But does this patent really prevent us from using public key cryptosystems? I think not. Mind you, I'm only an amateur legal hacker, but this seems like a straightforward situtation. Consider use of another public key encryption scheme, say LUC encryption. Does use of this infringe the "public key" patent? Not directly, since we're not using knapsacks (presumably). We then look the equivalents doctine. From Blacks: Equivalents doctrine. In patent infringement law, doctrine of "equivalents" means that if two devices do the same work in substantially the same way and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form, or shape. [...] A doctrine which declares that a device infringes a patented invention if it does the same work as the invention in substantially the same way, even if it is outside the literal terms of the claims of the patent. The doctrine prevents parties from infringing patents with impunity by making merely trivial changes in an invention. The more significant the patented invetion the greater the scope of this doctrine. So we have three criteria. "Same work" refers to function, "same way" refers to internal structure, "same result" refers to end product. Now public key cryptosystems all have the same function, to provide encryption and decryption with different keys. The result is the same at the end of each public key communication: a message has been passed securely from one end of the channel to the other. The structure, however, is completely different for the different systems. All three criteria must be satisfied in order for the equivalents doctrine to hold. The requirement of same structure is not satisfied. (Matt Miszewski has today offered to do legal research in anticipation of a patent fight. I'd like to ask him here to check out this theory with some references to case law.) RIPEM, as I understand it, came out originally with a different public key algorithm and later changed it. Perhaps Mark Henderson (who seems to have done some work on it) could comment. The equivalents doctrine seems to my mind to be a dual of the criteria required for patentability. There are four such criteria: statutory class (is it the right kind of thing), utility (is is good for anything), novelty (does it have new features), and unobviousness (does it have new results). The equivalence of function means that the utility of the two objects is the same. The equivalence of structure meanse that the new invention does not exhibit novelty. The equivalence of end result means that someone already thought of that before, i.e. it's obvious. Statutory class is the same for both, since if they're that close, they both are the kind of thing which might be patented. It is interesting as well to examine which can be patented: processes, machines, manufactures, compositions (of matter), and new uses of any of the above. Note that a bundle of properties and purposes, e.g. public key cryptography, is not patentable; it fails to specify structure, so any structure would be novel. The new use clause, though, is exceedingly scary. Under this class, existing equations could be used for different purposes and be separately patentable. For example, if you were to use the RSA equations for some purpose other that public key crypto and digital signature, that would be separately patentable. It behooves us all to think widely of possible applications and talk about them in order to make them part of the prior art. I'd like to see a document containing a good argument against the claim that all public key crypto is covered. It should have the full scholarly apparatus with it and an appendix explaining the apparatus to non-lawyers. This document could then be circulated widely, starting on sci.crypt. After that, developing a test case is easy. We would need for someone to write some public key crypto code (it need not be very complicated) and market it, claiming explicitly that the "public key" patent does not apply. We'd want them to be extremely loud in their claims, for example, writing the legal departments of all of the big RSADSI licensees and offering their wares for sale. If you could collect money, so much the better. This would almost invariably draw a lawsuit, since it so directly threatens RSADSI's business. Witness the speed with which the recent PGP board was asked to shut down. Assuming that we've already arranged for the up-front cost of legal defense, we'd be ready to go. Comments? Eric

2 1

PGP on soda.berkeley.edu
by Hal 01 May '93

01 May '93

The fact that PGP is available on the Cypherpunks FTP site, soda.berkely.edu, was publicized in sci.crypt last week (among other places and times). Eric said that the Cypherpunks FTP site has become among the top FTP access points in the world. When Stanton McCandlish posted on sci.crypt that he had PGP available on his system, he quickly received threats from Jim Bidzos demanding that he remove it. It follows, doesn't it, that Jim Bidzos would be forced to apply similar legal pressure to the Cypherpunks leadership to get them to remove PGP from their site, a site which may be one of the leaders worldwide in distributing PGP. Now we see Tim suggesting (in the spirit of "pancritical rationalism"? I'm not so sure...) that we move away from PGP, and Eric offering arguments showing why Bidzos has to do what he is doing. Is there a connection? Are Tim and Eric under pressure from Bidzos to get PGP off their site? I don't know, but they would certainly be likely targets for Bidzos' efforts, and so it is understandable that they may be feeling personal discomfort. But I'd like to hear more about the relationship with Bidzos. Hal

3 2

eurocrypt '93
by phr＠america.Telebit.COM 30 Apr '93

30 Apr '93

Is anyone thinking of going? It's in Norway, in late May. Pining for the fjords... Paul

1 0

clip.txt on NIST ftp
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 30 Apr '93

30 Apr '93

csrc.ncsl.nist.gov has some new uploads in /pub/nistnews, including Krammer(NIST)'s testimony to Markey, and clip.txt, a more recent Clipper description. It's short enough I'm attaching it below; the interesting part in Section 5 is that it says the wiretap block has 80-bit session key crypted with unit key, 25-bit serial number!, and 23-bit "authentication pattern" making a total of 128 narc bits. It also gets transmitted "at least once" to the receiver. Also, chip prices include "programmed and unprogrammed" - I wonder if real people will be able to buy them unprogrammed? Bill Stewart ------ clip here ----- CLIPPER CHIP TECHNOLOGY CLIPPER is an NSA developed, hardware oriented, cryptographic device that implements a symmetric encryption/decryption algorithm and a law enforcement satisfying key escrow system. While the escrow management system design is not completely designed, the cryptographic algorithm (SKIPJACK) is completely specified (and classified SECRET). The cryptographic algorithm (called CA in this paper) has the following characteristics: 1. Symmetric, 80-bit key encryption/decryption algorithm; 2. Similar in function to DES (i.e., basically a 64-bit code book transformation that can be used in the same four modes of operation as specified for DES in FIPS 81); 3. 32 rounds of processing per single encrypt/decrypt operation; 4. Design started by NSA in 1985; evaluation completed in 1990. The CLIPPER CHIP is just one implementation of the CA. The CLIPPER CHIP designed for the AT&T commercial secure voice products has the following characteristics: 1. Functions specified by NSA; logic designed by MYKOTRONX; chip fabricated by VLSI, Inc.: manufactured chip programmed (made unique) by MYKOTRONX to security equipment manufacturers willing to follow proper security procedures for handling and storage of the programmed chip; equipment sold to customers; 2. Resistant to reverse engineering against a very sophisticated, well funded adversary; 3. 15-20 MB/S encryption/decryption constant throughout once cryptographic synchronization is established with distant CLIPPER Chip; 4. The chip programming equipment writes (one time) the following information into a special memory (called VROM or VIA-Link) on the chip: a. (unique) serial number b. (unique) unit key c. family key d. specialized control software 5. Upon generation (or entry) of a session key in the chip, the chip performs the following actions: a. Encrypts the 80-bit session key under the unit key producing an 80-bit intermediate result; b. Concatenates the 80-bit result with the 25-bit serial number and a 23-bit authentication pattern (total of 128 bits); c. Enciphers this 128 bits with family key to produce a 128-bit cipher block chain called the Law Enforcement Field (LEF); d. Transmits the LEF at least once to the intended receiving CLIPPER chip; e. The two communicating CLIPPER chips use this field together with a random IV to establish Cryptographic Synchronization. 6. Once synchronized, the CLIPPER chips use the session key to encrypt/decrypt data in both directions; 7. The chips can be programmed to not enter secure mode if the LEF field has been tampered with (e.g., modified, superencrypted, replaced); 8. CLIPPER chips will be available from a second source in the future; 9. CLIPPER chips will be modified and upgraded in the future; 10. CLIPPER chips presently cost $16.00 (unprogrammed) and $26.00 (programmed). 4/30/93

1 0

Re: PGP on soda.berkeley.edu
by John (FuzzFace/Fast-Eddie) McMahon 30 Apr '93

30 Apr '93

> What founding father said "If we all don't hang together we will surely hang > seperately" Ben Franklin, I believe. John McMahon

1 0

Re: npr report
by karn＠qualcomm.com 30 Apr '93

30 Apr '93

> This is a *wonderful* analogy. Imagine if one could not buy a set of > locks for their house w/o buying the government lock-box to go beside > the front door. It's an even better analogy (for me) because of the experience I had a year ago with a house I was renting. The owner had put it up for sale, so a lockbox was installed on the garage door. One day I came home and noticed that the box was open, and the key inside was missing. Gave me a real warm and fuzzy feeling. One of the really nice things about now owning a house (vs renting) is that I can change the locks whenever I please and I don't have to give a copy to *anybody*... Phil

1 0

Re: PGP on soda.berkeley.edu
by lefty＠apple.com 30 Apr '93

30 Apr '93

>What founding father said "If we all don't hang together we will surely hang >seperately" Benjamin Franklin. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0