NODE 6f69d967Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:20:17 +0800
Jon Calis wrote:
>Also, we have three encryption products: PGP freeware, PGP for Personal
>Privacy, and PGP for Business Security. Corporate Message Recovery is
>included *only* in PGP for Business Security. It is not, and never will
>be, in either the freeware or the Personal Privacy product.
If this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then why is the
key escrow code written (although not turned on) in the source code for 5.0
that was posted internationally from PGP?
Makes no sense.
Bruce
>http://simson.vineyard.net/clips/96.SJMN.PGPBusinessEdition.html
....
> PRETTY LOOSE PRIVACY
>[...]
> Published: April 2, 1996
> BY SIMSON L. GARFINKEL
....
> That has not stopped Zimmermann from complaining loudly about the PGP
> name being used in a product that allows someone other than the author
> or the intended recipient access to information. Viacrypt owns the
> licensing rights to sell the commercial versions of PGP.
>
> ''PGP does not stand for back doors,'' said Zimmermann. ''I don't mind
> if they sell a program that has a back door in it, but they shouldn't
> call it PGP.''
>[...]
> ''If your employer can read your mail anytime he wants, without your
> permission, that goes against the spirit of the PGP trademark,'' said
> Zimmermann.
**********************************************************************
Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098
101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590
http://www.counterpane.com
NODE ffb7be0cRe: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:54:21 +0800
At 08:48 PM 10/7/97 -0500, Bruce Schneier wrote:
Jon Calis wrote:
>Also, we have three encryption products: PGP freeware, PGP for Personal
>Privacy, and PGP for Business Security. Corporate Message Recovery is
>included *only* in PGP for Business Security. It is not, and never will
>be, in either the freeware or the Personal Privacy product.
If this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then why is the
key escrow code written (although not turned on) in the source code for 5.0
that was posted internationally from PGP?
Bruce, I understand that you don't like any form of data recovery, but
there is no key escrow in PGP. Perhaps we should talk about this on the phone.
Makes no sense.
Bruce
-----
Jon Callas jon@pgp.com
Chief Scientist 555 Twin Dolphin Drive
Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. Suite 570
(415) 596-1960 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS)
665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)
NODE af86a3fcRe: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:15:26 +0800
[cryptography snipped, Perry's killed the thread]
Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com> writes:
> At 08:48 PM 10/7/97 -0500, Bruce Schneier wrote:
> Jon Calis wrote:
> If this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then
> why is the key escrow code written (although not turned on) in
> the source code for 5.0 that was posted internationally from PGP?
>
> Bruce, I understand that you don't like any form of data recovery,
> but there is no key escrow in PGP. Perhaps we should talk about this
> on the phone.
Oooh. PGP Inc damage control mode on <clunk>!
We all would like to hear the reason too, Jon :-)
> Makes no sense.
Here are a couple of reasonably plausible ones:
- common source tree with #ifdefs for different products
- some functionality required even in non business version to inform
user about policy flag meanings
btw I didn't read the source code quoted so that second attempt at a
plausible reason might be a dud.
btw2: it isn't just Bruce that doesn't like key escrow.
btw3: your definition of "data recovery" is wrong.
Adam
--
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
NODE fcb2c0c4Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:53:12 +0800
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 08:48 PM 10/7/97 -0500, Bruce Schneier wrote:
If this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then why is the
key escrow code written (although not turned on) in the source code for 5.0
that was posted internationally from PGP?
I just got through talking to one of the developers, and think I found what
you're talking about, Bruce.
In "pgp.c" of the Unix 5.0 published edition, there's some old Viacrypt code
with a comment that says, 'This is our version of "Commercial Key Escrow"' but
in fact just adds an additional recipient to the encryption list.
It is not in any shipping PGP product. If there's anything to laugh about
in all
this, if you try to use the feature in the Unix freeware, it core-dumps. It
doesn't appear at all in the Mac and Windows code.
It's completely gone as of now.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5
iQA/AwUBNDwkNn35wubxKSepEQJMvACfWZHVKkYswR9xLibuY8496a4GcaAAoNSB
Yda/tOiQA1vLGocTL0N6XVj1
=LNYn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----
Jon Callas jon@pgp.com
Chief Scientist 555 Twin Dolphin Drive
Pretty Good Privacy, Inc. Suite 570
(415) 596-1960 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS)
665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)
NODE cc51c263Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
"Carl M. Ellison" <cme@acm.org>Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:45:49 +0800
I thought when Phil showed me the corporate access option that the user had
the ability to remove that crypto-recipient by double clicking on it in the
window which pops up listing all crypto-recipients. I may have been wrong.
I agree with you that the danger is in allowing the gov't to claim that
industry accepts GAK. If this product were released with a sticker on
every copy to the effect that we citizens have always had a right to
attempt to keep a secret from gov't via crypto, then I'd feel better.
Meanwhile, aren't we overlooking the real issue here: that there are
apparently companies obnoxious enough to tell you you are not allowed to
send mail they can't read? Little Brother may be as bad as Big Brother.
- Carl
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison cme@acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2|
| "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." |
+-------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison (aka Mother) -+
NODE d81e6b3cRe: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:26:34 +0800
At 4:33 PM -0500 10/8/97, Jon Callas wrote:
>At 08:48 PM 10/7/97 -0500, Bruce Schneier wrote:
> Jon Calis wrote:
> >Also, we have three encryption products: PGP freeware, PGP for Personal
> >Privacy, and PGP for Business Security. Corporate Message Recovery is
> >included *only* in PGP for Business Security. It is not, and never will
> >be, in either the freeware or the Personal Privacy product.
>
> If this is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then why is the
> key escrow code written (although not turned on) in the source code for 5.0
> that was posted internationally from PGP?
>
>Bruce, I understand that you don't like any form of data recovery, but
>there is no key escrow in PGP. Perhaps we should talk about this on the phone.
Sure. Please call. Your CEO called me on Monday, and he tried to tell me
that it wasn't key escrow because you weren't saving copies of any keys.
If you're just going to call to split those sorts of hairs, don't bother.
I'm interested in hearing how your key escrow system works; I've already
been told why you put it in.
Bruce
**********************************************************************
Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098
101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590
http://www.counterpane.com
NODE 0b2a3318Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:10:35 +0800
In the New York Times Cyber Edition I was quoted as saying that PGP 5.5's
key escrow "sounds like everything the FBI ever dreamed of." Of course,
that's an overstatement. The FBI certainly has bigger dreams, like making
non-escrowed encryption illegal.
But PGP's system certainly is key escrow. PGP, Inc. is splitting hairs,
claiming that their system isn't key escrow because they don't keep copies
of any keys. This may be true, but it's a difference that makes no
difference.
What the PGP system does is automatically encrypt a copy of the message key
in the public key of the organization. This is more like the original
Clipper Chip. If you remember, the Clipper Chip included a Law Enforcement
Access Field in the ciphertext field; this field included the session key,
encrypted in a secret law-enforcement key. PGP 5.5 essentially does this.
You can think of the message key, encrypted in the public key of the
organization, as the CAF (Corporate Access Field). And just as the Clipper
Chip checked the validity of the LEAF before going into decrypt mode at the
remote end, there is software at the SMTP server that check the validity of
the CAF before allowing the encrypted e-mail to be sent. This isn't just
key escrow; it's key escrow done well.
Yes, this is only available in the Business Edition and not in the Personal
Edition. Yes, the company has to decide to turn it on. Yes, the user is
notified that this feature is turned on. But once it is turned on, the
user cannot turn it off. This is not manditory key escrow (unless you are
an employee of a company that decided it is manditory), but the FBI is not
after manditory key escrow right now. They're willing to settle for
voluntary. Then, in a few years, making it manditory can be spun as
"closing a loophole."
I agree with the 1996 Phil Zimmermann:
>http://simson.vineyard.net/clips/96.SJMN.PGPBusinessEdition.html
>....
> PRETTY LOOSE PRIVACY
> [...]
> Published: April 2, 1996
> BY SIMSON L. GARFINKEL
>....
> That has not stopped Zimmermann from complaining loudly about the PGP
> name being used in a product that allows someone other than the author
> or the intended recipient access to information. Viacrypt owns the
> licensing rights to sell the commercial versions of PGP.
>
> ''PGP does not stand for back doors,'' said Zimmermann. ''I don't mind
> if they sell a program that has a back door in it, but they shouldn't
> call it PGP.''
> [...]
> ''If your employer can read your mail anytime he wants, without your
> permission, that goes against the spirit of the PGP trademark,'' said
> Zimmermann.
Key escrow = someone other than the author or the intended recipient of the
message being able to decrypt it.
There are valid reasons for data backup, but they have nothing to do with
crypto key recovery. And there are absolutely no business reasons for
manditory recovery of communications. We talked about all of this in our
report on key recovery (http://www.crypto.com/key_study). Designing a
system that is slightly different doesn't negate everything we said.
I'm sorry, PGP, if I offended you. But that does not change the facts.
Bruce
**********************************************************************
Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098
101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590
http://www.counterpane.com