Re: Anonymous Nymserver: anon.nymserver.com

Bill Stewart wrote:

> 

> However, if you want to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt,

> at least keep your facts straight; it does a much better job.


  The straight facts are that you can't trust your best
friend not to bop your old-lady, given ample opportunity,
and to put even more trust in a stranger is foolish.

> >  PGP 2.0-->2.3a were released outside of the U.S. and imported into

> >the country.

> >  The use of PGP=>2.5 suddenly became a 'non-issue' for use in the U.S.

> >because they use both the algorithm and sub-routines developed by the

> >NSA and the Military.

> 

> The new algorithm was the International Drug Entrapment Agency algorithm,

> introduced in PGP 2.0 to replace the previous non-NSA-crackable algorithm,

> Bass-O-Matic.  Pay no attention to the comments in the source about fnords,

> /* these aren't the subroutines you're looking fnord */ and follow the money.


> PGP 2.5 became a non-issue because RSAREF takes care of the patent problem -

> which is largely because the widespread use of PGP really did spread the

> RSA algorithm's popularity, and giving away free licenses was about the only

> way for RSA Inc. to regain any control over it at all.

  Are you saying that the patent on the RSA algorithm wasn't
enforceable?

>  If you want to do

> a better job of FUD, you could talk about the under-the-table relationship

> between MIT and RSA or the RSA and NSA (they're only different by one letter!)

> or notice that the CAPSTONE implementations of Clipper used algorithms

> patented by PKP...


  The relationship between MIT and the NSA and the Military
isn't very far under the table. 
  The spooks funded MIT's RSA development, and they are not
noted for funding projects for the good of the common man.
To suggest that they would fund a form of cryptography that
didn't have their own back-door for sounds implausible.

TruthMonger

--Boundary..3952.1071713687.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


In <199703120846.BAA02942@shaman.lycaeum.org>, on 03/12/97 at 02:46 AM,
   TruthMonger <an7575@anon.nymserver.com> said:


>  The relationship between MIT and the NSA and the Military
>isn't very far under the table. 
>  The spooks funded MIT's RSA development, and they are not
>noted for funding projects for the good of the common man.
>To suggest that they would fund a form of cryptography that
>didn't have their own back-door for sounds implausible.

Well the source code is available for PGP & the RSA library. Can you
document where in the code there is a back door for the government?

If you can show what part of the code gives you concerns I am sure everyone
on the list would be eager to listen otherwise this is just more FUD.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Windows with bullet-proof glass.


--Boundary..3952.1071713687.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgTUVTU0FHRS0tLS0tClZlcnNpb246IDIuNi4zaQpD
b21tZW50OiBSZWdpc3RlcmVkIFVzZXIgRS1TZWN1cmUgdjEuMSBFUzAwMDAw
MAoKaVFDVkF3VUFNeVowNVk5Q28xbithTGhoQVFIc21BUC9aMzJ3Y20yVjRX
SyszelZqR0R4cW1nWFM3T2hZWEtJYgo5R2xlRi9uSU4zRlRJRXZza1NuTmN2
WnJ5OGliUTdLRlo3V3c0ZXkwMDdEcnZLVjgzVGVJT3d3L3VxQXVQcGhpCjVk
L2xvMmhuTmI5Y2xKVWxWNWpHUkJGbEoxVnlVb1VHcWtLbUtLRi9YTEQvcmQ0
L2cvbjJ4RUFCaVh2ZkRJL1IKeVh4NWs4aEdkaEE9Cj1xV2N3Ci0tLS0tRU5E
IFBHUCBNRVNTQUdFLS0tLS0=
--Boundary..3952.1071713687.multipart/signed--

William H. Geiger III wrote:

> 

> In <199703120846.BAA02942@shaman.lycaeum.org>, on 03/12/97 at 02:46 AM,

>    TruthMonger <an7575@anon.nymserver.com> said:

> 

> >  The relationship between MIT and the NSA and the Military

> >isn't very far under the table.

> >  The spooks funded MIT's RSA development, and they are not

> >noted for funding projects for the good of the common man.

> >To suggest that they would fund a form of cryptography that

> >didn't have their own back-door for sounds implausible.

> 

> Well the source code is available for PGP & the RSA library. Can you

> document where in the code there is a back door for the government?


  Can you document where it isn't?
 

> If you can show what part of the code gives you concerns I am sure everyone

> on the list would be eager to listen otherwise this is just more FUD.


  I realize that you may be too inexperienced in just how the
real world works to understand the value of mistrusting systems
whose development is bought and paid for by the spooks, but I
wish I had a nickle for every loser in history who went to the
gallows complaining that they'd been lied to and fucked over
when the real problem was that they had their hands over their
ears and thier eyes closed.
  Zimmerman may be a saint or a ratfucker, but either way, he
doesn't have a key to the cell door, so I'd rather count on 
myself to stay on the open-air side of it.

  I would suggest that if you want to look for "FUD" you take
a look at your own trusting faith in spook-produced cryptography.

TruthMonger