Apparently one can spell "Snake Oil" in Capital Letters, too (Re: CRYPTO-GRAM, August 15, 2004)
R. A. Hettinga
rah at shipwright.com
Sun Aug 15 04:33:24 PDT 2004
At 11:26 PM -0500 8/14/04, Bruce Schneier wrote:
>From: "Ken Lavender" <ICS_Atlanta at Charter.Net>
>Subject: ICS Atlanta
>
>I am APPAULED at your "comments" that you had made on your website:
>
> <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0407.html#9>
>
>You have statements are nothing but slander & defamation. They shall
>be dealt with accordingly.
>
>Lie #1: "How do they demonstrate Tree's security? 'Over 100
>professionals in mathematics & in computer science at Massachusetts
>Institute of Technology & at Georgia Tech, had sample encoded messages
>submitted to them. Not a single person could break this code!'" That
>is not the ONLY way we prove it. We have examples & offer to allow
>people to submit their OWN messages to have encoded to SEE how good the
>code is. So there are THREE methods, NOT just ONE as you IMPLY.
>
>Lie #2: "These guys sent unsolicited e-mails..." HOW do you KNOW that
>this was the case? Have any PROOF of such? NO!
>
>Lie #3: "And if all that isn't enough to make you run screaming from
>these guys, their website proudly proclaims: 'Tree Encoded Files Can Be
>"Zipped."'" Because they can be "zipped" does NOT mean that it is "bad
>encoding." The "code talkers" of ww2 used LANGUAGE to "code" the
>messages, and THOSE COULD BE "ZIPPED"!!! And that code was NEVER BROKEN!!!
>
>Lie #4: "That's right; their encryption is so lousy that the
>ciphertext doesn't even look random." AGAIN, HOW would you
>KNOW??? Did you break it? NO! And what is "random"???
>
> random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method
>
>"So lousy"? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW??? You would have to KNOW how we
>encode BEFORE you can make such a statement, & YOU DO NOT KNOW
>HOW!!! If it is SO LOUSY, how come NOBODY HAS BROKEN IT YET??? And we
>have people ALL THE TIME trying to, with ZERO SUCCESS.
>
>I do not like you slandering something that you do not
>understand. ATALL!!!
>
>The ONLY question you asked was "how long is the key" AND THAT WAS
>IT! HOW long was the key that the 'code talkers' used? ZERO!!! JUST AS
>OUR IS. The encoding routine was created, tested, & verified on PAPER
>& PENCIL WITHOUT COMPUTERS! A child could encode data using our
>routine. The computer is merely used to "speed-up" the process, NOT TO
>CREATE IT. Our routine is based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH. So all of you
>"comments" are just false, misleading & just plain ole lies! SHOW &
>PROVE that it is NOT random. What is the PATTERN THEN???
>
>I am DEMANDING A FULL RETRACTION OF YOUR COMMENTS & A FULL, COMPLETE
>APOLOGY TO THESE AND ALL STATEMENTS.
>
>I am a person who tries to work with people as a man w/o having to
>"drag" others into the mess. Others? THE COURTS. You have violated
>Calf law by your statements.
>
>[Text of California Civil Code Section 46 deleted.]
>
>Your LIES have damaged my respect in my job & has damaged any sales of
>this routine. You have ZERO proof of your "comments," ANY OF
>THEM!!! I beseech of you, do the RIGHT THING and comply. I DO NOT
>wish to escalate this matter any higher. And remember this, Tree is
>based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>[Phone number deleted out of mercy.]
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
More information about the Testlist
mailing list