8 October 1997
Source: Mail list cryptography@c2.net
See Jon Callas's exposition of PGP 5.5: http://jya.com/pgp-callas.htm
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:59:37 -0500
To: Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, cryptography@c2.net,
risks@csl.sri.com, minow@apple.com
From: Bruce Schneier <schneier@counterpane.com>
Subject: Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
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 mandatory key escrow (unless you are
an employee of a company that decided it is mandatory), but the FBI is not
after mandatory key escrow right now. They're willing to settle for
voluntary. Then, in a few years, making it mandatory 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
mandatory 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