Re: Clipper III on the table

Hip Hip Hooray!  Clinton will finally let us use _some_
20+year-old encryption code, which has been known to be relatively
weak for 15 years, as long as we give them all our keys!  What a guy!

I assume he's partly doing this to make a big "See, I'm in favor
of high-tech trade and crime-fighting" push in time for the election,
and unlike RC4/40, cracking DES on general-purpose processors
_is_ a big enough job that probably can't do a distributed crack
in two weeks.  But still, get real - the NBS/NIST kept recertifying DES
every 5 years only because it was in widespread use and there weren't
good fast alternatives for the first couple of years (except triple-DES,
which on the computers of the time was annoyingly slow.)  
There were far more powerful systems like Diffie-Hellman and later RSA 
that were too slow for general use and are now fairly practical,
but they're not letting us use them....


>>Here we go again...from today's NYTimes...Clipper III
...
>That URL is http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/1001code.html


#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> 	
# You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

At 2:53 pm -0400 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote:
> Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow
> the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is
> true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate.
> Even the promise might suffice.

My brother has gone out and had all these nice bumperstickers made up. They
say,

       Wake up, America!
He won't love you in the morning.

I had trouble figuring out what my elder sib was getting at, until this...

;-),

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

> At 2:53 pm -0400 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote:
> > Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow
> > the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is
> > true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate.
> > Even the promise might suffice.
> My brother has gone out and had all these nice bumperstickers made up. They
> say,
>        Wake up, America!
> He won't love you in the morning.

     Where could one aquire this bumpersticker?


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

At 9:19 am -0400 10/3/96, snow wrote:
> >        Wake up, America!
> > He won't love you in the morning.
>
>      Where could one aquire this bumpersticker?

A lot of people have asked me this. :-).

Just send me e-mail, and I'll forward it on to my brother, who had them
printed up. He gave the first few away, but the postage on the tube he sent
mine to me in was $3.00, ('course he sent it to me priority mail...), so
he's not going to do that for long if I choke his mailbox...

Anyway, pricing the things so he doesn't lose money's his problem, I
suppose. :-)

Just send me a message saying you want one, and I'll pass it along.


Cheers,
Bob Hettinga


-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow
> the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is
> true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate.
> Even the promise might suffice.

Don't bet on it.

-- 
You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:

> Lucky Green wrote:
> > 
> > Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow
> > the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is
> > true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate.
> > Even the promise might suffice.
> 
> Don't bet on it.

Allow me to say here that I do not belive that Netscape will be amongst 
those fooled so easily. But IBM, HP, TIS, and others have already been 
fooled. The USG does not need to get every software company to agree with 
their proposal. Divide and conquer. Seems that the USG has done a 
marvelous job of D&C so far.

--Lucky

> > > Even the promise (of no limits) might suffice.
> > 
> > Don't bet on it.
>
> Allow me to say here that I do not belive that Netscape will be amongst
> those fooled so easily. But IBM, HP, TIS, and others have already been
> fooled. The USG does not need to get every software company to agree with

I don't think it's a matter of being fooled.

IBM and HP have very large federal systems divisions.  They are also
fighting for more (and hold on to current) financial sector customers.

The government currently has a huge strangle hold on that market in
terms of regulatory agencies/policies that will not be loosened very
easily (assuming one believes that it should be loosened, which I do
not necessarily agree with).

Therefore, it is definitely in IBM's and HP's interest to build
systems that the government likes.  It is also important for them to
point out that such systems are very vulnerable given the previous
policies.  This new GAK ("GAKR"??) will actually be quite appropriate
in terms of a right "balance" for the financial sector.  In fact, I
would expect the financial sector to have to open its transactions to
not just the FBI/CIA/DEA, but the SEC and other non-law-enforcement
agencies.

The question is:  Why is this GAKR appropriate for the rest of us?
Why do we want it?

It really does harm the "small" companies like Netscape because they
don't have as much resources to establish the infrastructure
necessary for GAKR, and their target markets are not in bed with the
local governments.  Instead, their target markets are anyone who
wants to buy, and no one, when it comes to their personal privacy
would want to buy something to which the U.S. government has a
guaranteed backdoor.

I predict, therefore, Netscape and RSA would NOT capitulate to this
latest bitter carrot.

Ern

Ernest Hua wrote:

| Therefore, it is definitely in IBM's and HP's interest to build
| systems that the government likes.  It is also important for them to
| point out that such systems are very vulnerable given the previous
| policies.  This new GAK ("GAKR"??) will actually be quite appropriate
| in terms of a right "balance" for the financial sector.  In fact, I
| would expect the financial sector to have to open its transactions to
| not just the FBI/CIA/DEA, but the SEC and other non-law-enforcement
| agencies.

	The financial industry doesn't need GAK, the SEC, FINCEN et al
already get full access to their networks & data.  The financial
industry is very cooperative about this.  As such, GAK is adding
(unquantifiable) risk to their plans, without giving the LEAs
anything.  I am suggesting to my customers in the financial sector
that they continue moving towords 3des, and only look at this as an
alternative to foreign software for their overseas branches.

	Remember, banks already get a partial exemption to the ITARs.

Adam

-- 
"Every year the Republicans campaign like Libertarians, and then go to
Wasthington and spend like Democrats."

Vote Harry Browne for President.  http://www.harrybrowne96.org

At 7:11 pm -0400 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote:
> Allow me to say here that I do not belive that Netscape will be amongst
> those fooled so easily. But IBM, HP, TIS, and others have already been
> fooled.

Actually, I think those companies have been coerced. Microsoft will be next.

Remember that IBM and Microsoft have a very clear understanding of what
government coercion is, both at the hands of the DOJ's anti-trust section.

I agree with Lucky's earlier hypothesis that HP's doing this to curry favor
for government contracts in lieu of an actual marketing strategy, and I
leave TIS's motives up to the list as an exercise. ;-).

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Robert Hettinga wrote:
[as to why HP and others support GAK in exchange for DES export]

> I agree with Lucky's earlier hypothesis that HP's doing this to curry 
favor
> for government contracts in lieu of an actual marketing strategy, and I
> leave TIS's motives up to the list as an exercise. ;-).

This not a hypothesis. A policy person from HP told me that

1. HP as well as TIS and other companies sell single DES products that 
they would like to be able to export.
2. He was directed by HP's marketing department to find a way to make 
that happen.
3. He therefore supports a GAK for export "compromise".

--Lucky

At 9:31 pm -0400 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote:
> This not a hypothesis. A policy person from HP told me that...

I stand corrected. It is a fact. Serves me right for working from memory on
that point.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga


-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

At 4:11 PM -0700 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
>
>> Lucky Green wrote:
>> >
>> > Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow
>> > the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is
>> > true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate.
>> > Even the promise might suffice.
>>
>> Don't bet on it.
>
>Allow me to say here that I do not belive that Netscape will be amongst
>those fooled so easily. But IBM, HP, TIS, and others have already been
>fooled. The USG does not need to get every software company to agree with
>their proposal. Divide and conquer. Seems that the USG has done a
>marvelous job of D&C so far.

I also believe Netscape has cast its lot on the side of strong crypto, and
will likely reject the GAK-IBM-Clipper IV-TIS monstrosity.

And if Netscape doesn't, there's always Microsoft Explorer waiting!

(Seriously, if either Netscape or Microsoft, the two 800-MB gorillas,
chooses to implement GAK, a concerted campaign to urge people to switch to
the _other_ one can be launched. "Just Say No to Netscape" or "Just Say No
to MS Explorer," as applicable. Then the other one, the one not yet
implementing GAK, can get the message. If, of course, they coordinate their
adoption of GAK for a simultaneous release, then we're screwed. :-})

As for IBM's involvement, they've played around with the NSA for decades.
Nothing new there. Fortunately, today they're just a marginal player.

--Tim May


--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Hip Hip Hooray!  Clinton will finally let us use _some_
> 20+year-old encryption code, which has been known to be relatively
> weak for 15 years, as long as we give them all our keys!  What a guy!

Note that the second article stated that the administration will allow 
the use of stronger cypto than 56 bit once GAK is in place. If this is 
true, much of the current industry resistance is likely to evaporate. 
Even the promise might suffice.

--Lucky

stewarts@ix.netcom.com writes:
> Hip Hip Hooray!  Clinton will finally let us use _some_
> 20+year-old encryption code, which has been known to be relatively
> weak for 15 years, as long as we give them all our keys!  What a guy!

I personally don't mind forcing escrow of 56 bit keys so long as
people can use 128 bit keys without escrow. >:-)

> I assume he's partly doing this to make a big "See, I'm in favor
> of high-tech trade and crime-fighting" push in time for the election,
> and unlike RC4/40, cracking DES on general-purpose processors
> _is_ a big enough job that probably can't do a distributed crack
> in two weeks.

We really have to work on cracking DES at least once -- it would
substantially reduce the wind in the Administration's sails.

Perry

In <199610011844.OAA02818@jekyll.piermont.com>, on 10/01/96 
   at 02:44 PM, "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> said:

=1Estewarts@ix.netcom.com writes:
=1E> Hip Hip Hooray!  Clinton will finally let us use _some_
=1E> 20+year-old encryption code, which has been known to be relatively 
=

=1E> weak for 15 years, as long as we give them all our keys!  What a guy=
!

=1EI personally don't mind forcing escrow of 56 bit keys so long as
=1Epeople can use 128 bit keys without escrow. >:-)

        c'mon, perry, might as well push it on up to 2048. <g & RTFM>

        besides, their "hiding their heads in the sand" game is getting
    hysterical; it's approaching a bad Monty Python gig for silliness.

=1E> I assume he's partly doing this to make a big "See, I'm in favor 
=1E> of high-tech trade and crime-fighting" push in time for the election=
, 
=1E> and unlike RC4/40, cracking DES on general-purpose processors 
=1E> _is_ a big enough job that probably can't do a distributed crack 
=1E> in two weeks.

=1EWe really have to work on cracking DES at least once -- it would
=1Esubstantially reduce the wind in the Administration's sails.
=1EPerry

        while you have the setup, try at least three messages so the
    whiners have not claim to "...it was a lucky hit...!"

        what did the 128 key 1976 Scientific American challenge
    take in resources a few years back? it was 386s?

        meanwhile, go after the new one they are using for the govern-
    ment.  you are absolutely correct that the wind will be calm in
    their sails if it is nailed enough times --if we can get the mainstre=
am
    to publish it, and all of us not rounded up for dope, or one of the
    other easy to drop evidence attacks, to get us off the street.... 

       given the smell of the Inslaw / 'Promis' deal with its back doors =

    big enough to drive a truck in and imbedded sniffers, I'm sure DES 
    has a few...  NSA is not about to pass that up, and they wrote it.


--
  "I don't make jokes. 
    I just watch the government and report the facts."
        --Will Rogers

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 stewarts@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 10:06:40 -0700
> From: stewarts@ix.netcom.com
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Clipper III on the table
> 
> Hip Hip Hooray!  Clinton will finally let us use _some_
> 20+year-old encryption code, which has been known to be relatively
> weak for 15 years, as long as we give them all our keys!  What a guy!
>

I have to point out that there is no "relative victory".  We have neither
won in whole nor in part.

> 
> I assume he's partly doing this to make a big "See, I'm in favor
> of high-tech trade and crime-fighting" push in time for the election,
>

If he even figures that out... he's probably doing it because some advisor
said it wouldn't make a difference to crypto, and that advisor would
basicly be right.

>
> and unlike RC4/40, cracking DES on general-purpose processors
> _is_ a big enough job that probably can't do a distributed crack
> in two weeks.  But still, get real - the NBS/NIST kept recertifying DES
> every 5 years only because it was in widespread use and there weren't
> good fast alternatives for the first couple of years (except triple-DES,
> which on the computers of the time was annoyingly slow.)  
>

Good point.

>
> There were far more powerful systems like Diffie-Hellman and later RSA 
> that were too slow for general use and are now fairly practical,
> but they're not letting us use them....
> 

Not _letting_ you?  Exactly which one is the government saying you _CAN'T_
use?  I've seen you can't export, you can't use in government work, etc...
but never once have I seen a law be _passed_ that said you couldn't use
any form of crypto (and I'd like to keep it that way)

> 
> #			Thanks;  Bill

 --Deviant
They seem to have learned the habit of cowering before authority even when
not actually threatened.  How very nice for authority.  I decided not to
learn this particular lesson.
                -- Richard Stallman