Re: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 (Aaargh!)

Haa,

*my* key was also converted to a 2.6 key
(certainly just s/2.3a/2.6/g; , but it _is_ a 2.6-Key now).


Now my public key is a 2.6 key and I am not allowed
to have or use 2.6, because I'm german. Isn't it lovely?

Hadmut

Wednesday May 25 1994 23:50 danisch@ira.uka.de (Hadmut Danisch) wrote:

[edited]

 HD> Subject: Re: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 (Aaargh!)
 HD> Message-Id: <9405252138.AA24321@tartarus.ira.uka.de>
 HD> Date: 25 May 1994 23:50:52 +0200

 HD> Haa,

 HD> *my* key was also converted to a 2.6 key
 HD> (certainly just s/2.3a/2.6/g; , but it _is_ a 2.6-Key now).

Mine says it's 2.7. ;-)

 HD> Now my public key is a 2.6 key and I am not allowed
 HD> to have or use 2.6, because I'm german. Isn't it lovely?

I don't like to read this list and see that many posts are about the political
problems with ITAR, patents and copyrights. Actually, I'm just a simple
software type, so I'm glad I read somewhere (here?) that the source to PGP 2.6
will be released, so that we can correct any problems introduced in it for
political reasons.

As to not being allowed to have or use 2.6 in Europe, what makes you think so?
I may be wrong, but I thought the only obstacle was that it may not be exported
to us due to ITAR. Once it's available here there's nothing wrong with having
or using it. I've seen PGP 2.5 flowing through European wires, so I think that
2.6 will come here too (if it hasn't come already).

Which makes this whole mess with ITAR, patents, copyrights and US and maybe
Canada only ftp sites even more difficult to understand for an outsider like
me. What's the point of all this, if cyberspace knows no borders? What are MIT
and RSA up to? Should this be discussed in alt.conspiracy? ;-)

I humbly admit that I'm clueless...

 HD> Hadmut

CU,  Sico (sico@aps.hacktic.nl).

[PGP public key:]
bits/keyID   Date       User ID
1024/5142B9 1992/09/09  Sico Bruins <Fido: 2:280/404>
     Key fingerprint =  16 9A E1 12 37 6D FB 09  F6 AD 55 C6 BB 25 AC 25
                        (InterNet: sico@aps.hacktic.nl)

> . What's the point of all this, if cyberspace knows no borders? What
> are MIT and RSA up to? Should this be discussed in alt.conspiracy? ;-)

Well, I can't answer for RSA, but MIT is making a US-legal version
of PGP...  The incompatibility is a concession that had to be made
to get the approval of RSA.

-derek

In-reply-to: Your message dated: Wed, 25 May 1994 23:38:17
> *my* key was also converted to a 2.6 key
> (certainly just s/2.3a/2.6/g; , but it _is_ a 2.6-Key now).
> 
> 
> Now my public key is a 2.6 key and I am not allowed
> to have or use 2.6, because I'm german. Isn't it lovely?

Maybe  we should request to remove our keys?


Tomaz

Maybe  we should request to remove our keys?

Unfortunately, it wouldn't do much good.  The keyservers have no
exclude list, so even if they removed it, someone could reload it back
onto the keyserver and it would reappear.

This flaw is not, at root, a flaw with the keyservers but a flaw with
the key distribution in PGP.  You can't have a public key be anything
other than completely public, that is, you can't restrict the
distribution of a key in any way.

Why might not a key be made public?  The publication of a key sends a
message, and the message is this: "An identity of this name exists".
If you're worried about traffic analysis, you might well also be
concerned that there is knowledge that a particular key is being used
at all.  If you don't want everybody to be able to verify your
signatures, but wish to select those who may, PGP offers facility for
this.  There is no way to represent this desire syntactically and no
way to enforce the desire.

Why might not one want a key distributed?  It indicates use of
cryptography, for one, and, perhaps, the use of patent-infringing
cryptography.

Eric