🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.crypt
Article #2300

Re: PGP as a World Standard

#2300
From: Paul C Leyland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:14
46 lines
2820 bytes
In article <1992Dec22.193145.15016@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

   I hate to prolong this thread, but on a new point Vesselin raised, if
   the patent or munitions act violation were possession and use of PGP
   in the U.S., the restitution is to get rid of it. Posting a key is not
   itself a violation but indicative of one, and thus a PGP-signed
   cancellation won't cure the violation. It would just worsen it, since
   one would have to use PGP to create the revocation certificate.

I always fear to get involved in an argument between two parties, said
argument being conducted in public, but here goes anyway.

As I understand it, David has unwittingly used a product he obtained
in a manner which he now believes to be unethical and, quite
naturally, does not wish to re-use that tainted product to negate some
of the consequences of the first action.

On the other hand, Vesselin has suggested that the product must be
used if he (David) is to make restitution in some sense.

Here's what I suggest:

David does *not* use PGP to issue a revocation certificate.  He
broadcasts, on this newsgroup, his secret key, pass-phrase, anything
he wishes, *without* using PGP.  He uses uuencode, for example, as an
asciifier.  Vesselin likewise posts David's public key and anyone who
is interested checks it against their own copy.  Once both are
published, anyone can check that they are indeed a public-private
pair.  Anyone in possession of both can then issue a revocation
certificate.

I'll volunteer, if need be, as I don't believe possession and use of
pgp *in my environment* is illegal or unethical.  I'd prefer others to
do it (Vesselin?), as I've only just started to use pgp and I'm not
fully confident that I know exactly what I'm doing.

Does this suggestion satisfy the honour of both parties?  Is it
practical?

Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pcl@oxford.ac.uk>          | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service      |     the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200  Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
Finger pcl@black.ox.ac.uk for PGP key    |
Technical Details
Message-ID: <PCL.92Dec23101451@rhodium.ox.ac.uk>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!pcl
References: <bontchev.724945521@fbihh> <1992Dec21.185308.25306@netcom.com> <bontchev.725034641@fbihh> <1992Dec22.193145.15016@netcom.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!pcl
From: pcl@ox.ac.uk (Paul C Leyland)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
Message-ID: <PCL.92Dec23101451@rhodium.ox.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:14:51 GMT
References: <bontchev.724945521@fbihh> <1992Dec21.185308.25306@netcom.com>
 <bontchev.725034641@fbihh> <1992Dec22.193145.15016@netcom.com>
Organization: Oxford University Computing Services, 13 Banbury Rd Oxford OX2
 6NN
Lines: 46
In-reply-to: strnlght@netcom.com's message of 22 Dec 92 19:31:45 GMT