Article View: sci.crypt
Article #2300Re: PGP as a World Standard
From: Paul C Leyland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:14
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 10:14
46 lines
2820 bytes
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!pclReferences:
<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