From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 19:27:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: PGP Inc PR cover-up
Message-ID: <199710301011.KAA01067@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I wonder about the sudden lull in the pgp5.5 CMR argument: have PGP
Inc enforced a blanket ban on participation in list discussion of the
topic by their employees?

Even our anonymous PGP employees posting via remailers on cypherpunks
seem to have stopped.

PGP Inc seemed to me to be heavily losing the argument where ever
employees have spoken on the topic.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be translating into rejection of
the CMR feature, nor of adoption of less dangerous alternatives such
as forward secret transport level security, shorter lived encryption
keys, and separate storage keys.

Perhaps it will take an official government snoop endorsement of
pgp5.5 before the danger is acknowledged; by then the damage will have
been done.


Meanwhile over on ietf-open-pgp:

The ietf-open-pgp forum for discussion of development of the now IETF
controlled OpenPGP standard seems to have undergone a coo.  Cypherpunk
Lutz Donnerhacke had pre-empted Rodney Thayer and PGP's Jon Callas
draft which had been slow coming by producing a competing draft before
them.  Lutz's draft was not sympathetic with PGP Inc's CMR, and even
included SHOULD features encouraging separate storage keys.  

John Noerenberg (appointed IETF chair) over-ruled Lutz, and wrested
editing of the draft from him, and demonstrated some petty power
wielding in over ruling a vote on terminology Lutz had set up -- Lutz
had already said he didn't care about the outcome, and just called the
vote as a quick way to resolve argument.  Now we are waiting for Jon
Callas to release the new draft.  Wonder whether it will include CMR
or not :-)

Join in the battle: subscribe by sending email with body 
"subscribe ietf-open-pgp" to <majordomo@imc.org>.  The list address
for posting articles is <ietf-open-pgp@imc.org>

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`