PGP 2.5 Beta Release Over, PGP 2.6 to be released next week

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The beta version of PGP 2.5 is now being removed from MIT file servers.

In about a week,  MIT will begin  distribution of a new release numbered
PGP 2.6. PGP 2.6 will incorporate a new version of RSAREF, scheduled for
release by RSA Data Security next week, and  will also correct bugs that
were reported in PGP 2.5.

In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
messages generated by those earlier versions.

MIT's intent is  to discourage continued use  of the earlier  infringing
software,  and to give  people adequate time  to upgrade. As part of the
release process, MIT has commissioned an independent legal review of the
intellectual property issues surrounding earlier releases of PGP and PGP
keyservers. This   review determined  that PGP  2.3  infringes  a patent
licensed by MIT to RSADSI, and that keyservers that primarily accept 2.3
keys  are mostly  likely   contributing to this  infringement.  For that
reason,  MIT encourages all non-commercial  users in the U.S. to upgrade
to PGP 2.6,  and all keyserver operators  to no longer accept keys  that
are identified as being produced by PGP 2.3.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQBVAgUBLdezEVUFZvpNDE7hAQGRhAH+KACuaOfMynsL9QGmJpp9ToWEJB+1OFGb
whoZbHbw/H268zIrFoCcm24UITcBiIcuSsk3ydpMyFTb/YBgIbzgqQ==
=EbV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:

> MIT encourages all non-commercial  users in the U.S. to upgrade
> to PGP 2.6,  and all keyserver operators  to no longer accept keys  that
> are identified as being produced by PGP 2.3.

But how SAFE is MIT-PGP 2.6?  I've yet to read any independent reviews of 
it.

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

Jeffrey I. Schiller scribbles:

> In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> messages generated by those earlier versions.

So how long do you think it'll take after the release of 2.6 for
patches that disable this "feature" to come out?

And what about ViaCrypt's PGP 2.4?

Bob

You wrote:

| Jeffrey I. Schiller scribbles:

| > In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
| > public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
| > creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
| > of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
| > by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
| > messages generated by those earlier versions.
| 
| So how long do you think it'll take after the release of 2.6 for
| patches that disable this "feature" to come out?
| 
| And what about ViaCrypt's PGP 2.4?

	Well, clearly, 2.6 will have some very bright AI features, so
that it will talk to people who'se Key-ID's identify them as being
outside of the US, as their versions of PGP are perfectly legal.

	And 2.4 is legal, if the 2.6 code doesn't recognize that,
well, then that code is buggy & will need to be fixed.  :)

Adam

-- 
Adam Shostack 				       adam@bwh.harvard.edu

Politics.  From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.

Jeffrey Schiller and C'punks,

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:

> . . .
> In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> messages generated by those earlier versions.
> . . .

Does this intentional non-interoperability include ViaCrypt PGP?


 S a n d y

> 
> In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> messages generated by those earlier versions.
>

I suppose that it (also) will not allow upgrade inclusion of a secret
key created with these previous versions? If not, I can't imagine 
many folks will be rushing to upgrade to 2.6.

- paul

Paul Ferguson says:
> > In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> > public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> > creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> > of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> > by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> > messages generated by those earlier versions.
> >
> 
> I suppose that it (also) will not allow upgrade inclusion of a secret
> key created with these previous versions? If not, I can't imagine 
> many folks will be rushing to upgrade to 2.6.

Besides, since 2.5 is legal, and doesn't have this "feature", and can
be fixed by people at will, I suspect that no one will see any reason
to use 2.6...

Perry

> In order  to   fully protect  RSADSI's intellectual  property  rights in
> public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners
> by MIT and Stanford University. PGP 2.6 will continue to be able to read
> messages generated by those earlier versions.

Are we ever going to be told the details of the deals previously alluded
to regarding keyservers and PGP 2.5 (and now presumably also PGP 2.6)?
I grow more and more curious.

If users inside the USA take to using PGP 2.6 then users outside the
USA will, by fair means or foul, have to obtain PGP 2.6 (or at least
enough technical data to enable them to independently implement the
relevant algorithms).  Failing that, they will have to live with the
inability to read messages from PGP 2.6 users inside the USA.  Sigh.  I
wonder whether anybody is deliberately fostering a split between USA and
non-USA users of PGP.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Alan Barrett wrote:

> 
> If users inside the USA take to using PGP 2.6 then users outside the
> USA will, by fair means or foul, have to obtain PGP 2.6 (or at least
> enough technical data to enable them to independently implement the
> relevant algorithms).  Failing that, they will have to live with the
> inability to read messages from PGP 2.6 users inside the USA.  Sigh.  I
> wonder whether anybody is deliberately fostering a split between USA and
> non-USA users of PGP.

I just found PGP 2.5 on a non-USA ftp site. I expect 2.6 will turn up there.

Dave

Hi Everyone.

I've been lurking on this very interesting list, but I figured this needed
to be commented on. ;-)

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:

> public-key technology, PGP 2.6 will be designed so  that the messages it
> creates after September 1,  1994 will be  unreadable by earlier versions
> of PGP that infringe patents licensed exclusively to Public Key Partners

This kind of fascism has, IMO, doomed PGP 2.6 before it's even met full
release status.  Not only do I disagree with the principles behind this,
but it shuts out the rest of the world from reading messages originating
in Canada and the U.S., which more than anything else will kill PGP 2.6. 
After all, the world most certainly does not revolve around North America.

I'd say that it's high time for another European release of PGP.

                     Mark