Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)

At 6:46 PM 2/20/96, IPG Sales wrote:

>Hedging, hedging, hedging - why? I did not noitice this <...>

        IPG, why don't you sit down and draw up the terms of a challenge?
Specify:

        * what information and/or materials IPG will release
        * to whom it will release them and when
        * who is or isn't elligible
        * what you will and won't accept as "breaking your system"
        * the arbitrating body
        * a starting time and a deadline
        * the award

        You'd do well to be _very_ thorough in these terms, since any
perception that IPG was trying to throw the game would draw that much more
fire. You'd also do well to make terms terms conform to real-world
circumstances: for example, if someone hacking the office machines on which
which you generate, store, and/or disseminate RNs is a practical threat to
your product, then admit that as an acceptable part of a "break."

Ted

On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, t byfield wrote:

> At 6:46 PM 2/20/96, IPG Sales wrote:
> 
> >Hedging, hedging, hedging - why? I did not noitice this <...>
> 
>         IPG, why don't you sit down and draw up the terms of a challenge?
> Specify:
> 
B>         * what information and/or materials IPG will release
>         * to whom it will release them and when
>         * who is or isn't elligible
>         * what you will and won't accept as "breaking your system"
>         * the arbitrating body
>         * a starting time and a deadline
>         * the award
> 
>         You'd do well to be _very_ thorough in these terms, since any
> perception that IPG was trying to throw the game would draw that much more
> fire. You'd also do well to make terms terms conform to real-world
> circumstances: for example, if someone hacking the office machines on which
> which you generate, store, and/or disseminate RNs is a practical threat to
> your product, then admit that as an acceptable part of a "break."
> 
> Ted
> 
> 

It seems to me that Cypherpunks, the mailing list of individuals, has a 
very practical solution to the argument - Derek asked for certain things 
- we agreed fully with those terms  - we will provide the complete 
set of algorithms employed - we will also provide a free demo system(s) - > 

Unlike Mr. Silvernail, we have a much simplier definition of what we mean 
by a one time pad - given a message/file of length N, where N is a finite 
practical number say less than 10 to the 1000th power, that the encrypted 
ciphertext can be any of the N to the 256th power possibile clear/plain 
text messages/files.  To prove that the IPG system does not work, all you 
have to do is to prove that is not the case - that our system, without 
artifically imposed boundary conditions will generate a subset of those 
possibilities  - that is simple and strsight forward - not 
hyperbole but action - everyone stated how simple it was to break the system,
now everyone is back paddling aa fast as they can, like Mr. Metzger and some of the other big bad cyphermouths. 

Put up or shut up - why is everyone all of a sudden backing away from 
what Derek proposed - because we proposed a two way street -  operhaps 
that is the real underlying problem - you are suddenly afraid that 
you are wrong - some of the cyphermouths want to argue 
semantics and abstract theory but no one wants to prove anything one way 
or the other - this is also my answer to Mr. Metzger - do as you like, I have 
absolutely no ability to force you to do anything, just like you have no 
ability to prove us wrong, absolutely zero ability, just talk, talk, 
and more talk - no substamce anymore - just talk - talk - we are the big 
bad wolf, doctor,  that is going to kill our patients, you have the power to 
prevent that Perry - why don't you do it? You had rather sit omn the 
sideliunes and tell everyone how great you are - you are not concerned 
about the patients like you claimed yesterday, you are only 
concerned about youself - You have the ability to try to prove us wrong - 
do it. How about some action from someone, we have two taker - now, anymore?

I do not want to argue semantics with Mr. Silvernail, or Mr. Metzger - 
they have an opinion - that does not prove them right - they are entitled 
to their opinion - but they would rather castigate us out of hand than 
prove us wrong - they want to talk, talk, talk but not do anything. It is 
obviously that both are dodging the issue, by taking their own narrow 
minded view of what is and is not the truth  - both are all talk but no 
action - a lot of bull and arbitrary  posturing, but that is all itis, pure 
unadultarated bull - .

They are afraid they may be wrong and they most assuredly are - I believe 
our offer to be fair, let us hear what Derek has to say when he gets around 
to it. 

Let Derek, Inccarth, and Adam be the aribtion committee, decide whether 
the system is fataklly flawed or not - we will accept their findings 
subject to only one caveat, that they have the intellectual honesty to 
tell the truth. I believe that since Mr. Silvernail and Mr. Metzger have 
exluded themselves, that Derek, Inccarth and Adam do have that 
intellectual honesty to tell the truth - is that weighted too much in 
IPGs favor.   

Also, let them decide and report to the other Cypherpunks, whether we 
were justified in witholding broad dissemination of certain materials -
the onlu caveat there is that they wait threee months, or until they 
break the system to make that report, and again conform to a high standard 
of intellectual honesty. 

What can be more fair than that, you own members can be the entire 
judging committee - are you afraid of the truth - if you cannot accept 
that you are. Tthat could be your only real reason fornot  facing it. I 
believe that many of you are now backtracfking because you are afraid of 
the truth - we invite whatever number you might choose to try - if some 
subset of Cyberpunks break the system, then they can publish everything -

Sigh -

IPG Sales writes:
[garbage about what a one time pad is]

Er, you guys redefine the word "Oxygen" to mean "A brown liquid
produced by fermenting barley and hops", too?

A one time pad crypto system requires that the length of the
completely random key (not "practically random", not "nearly random")
is equal to the length of the plaintext, and that which said key is
used once and *only once*. Using a key to produce a pseudo-random
sequence which is used to encrypt is *NOT* a one-time pad, and any
claim that it is constitutes fraud, pure and simple, just like a claim
that sugar water pills are antibiotics or that drops of red dye in a
mixture of grain alchohol and water are French red wine.

> this is also my answer to Mr. Metzger - do as you like, I have
> absolutely no ability to force you to do anything,

Of course not. However, I'll point out that you've annoyed me by
peddling merchandise that can potentially harm your clients and bring
a bad name to the field of cryptography.  People do have the ability
to go to your state's Attorney General, you know. Keep marketing this
crap and believe me, someone will -- very possibly even me. I am
almost sure that defrauding customers continues to be against the law
everywhere in the United States.

Perry

Perry, fractions of what you say are true, but only small fractions,

Stubborness and stupidity are twins - 

Save all those lives you were talking about a few days agao, show us how 
easy it is to break the system - and reqad the messages form others - you 
are spouting a bunch of supercilious crap and everyone else knows that, 
except maybe you, you are obviously too stupid to recognize that - please 
save all those lives at stake




On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 
> IPG Sales writes:
> [garbage about what a one time pad is]
> 
> Er, you guys redefine the word "Oxygen" to mean "A brown liquid
> produced by fermenting barley and hops", too?
> 
> A one time pad crypto system requires that the length of the
> completely random key (not "practically random", not "nearly random")
> is equal to the length of the plaintext, and that which said key is
> used once and *only once*. Using a key to produce a pseudo-random
> sequence which is used to encrypt is *NOT* a one-time pad, and any
> claim that it is constitutes fraud, pure and simple, just like a claim
> that sugar water pills are antibiotics or that drops of red dye in a
> mixture of grain alchohol and water are French red wine.
> 
> > this is also my answer to Mr. Metzger - do as you like, I have
> > absolutely no ability to force you to do anything,
> 
> Of course not. However, I'll point out that you've annoyed me by
> peddling merchandise that can potentially harm your clients and bring
> a bad name to the field of cryptography.  People do have the ability
> to go to your state's Attorney General, you know. Keep marketing this
> crap and believe me, someone will -- very possibly even me. I am
> almost sure that defrauding customers continues to be against the law
> everywhere in the United States.
> 
> Perry
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, ipgsales@cyberstation.net writes:

> Unlike Mr. Silvernail, we have a much simplier definition of what we mean 
> by a one time pad

First of all, I note to the list that I have exchanged some email with
IPGsales, whence this reference comes.  I had hoped there would be
enough integrity in IPGsales that sie would note the difference between
private mail and mail to the list.

The gist of my mail has been that IPGsales likes to redefine accepted
terms of art to their own benefit.  I didn't (and don't) define what a
one time pad is.  I simply noted that PRNG-based systems are not one time
pads, and asked that IPGsales refrain from mislabeling their system as
such.

> I do not want to argue semantics with Mr. Silvernail, or Mr. Metzger - 
> they have an opinion - that does not prove them right - they are entitled 
> to their opinion - but they would rather castigate us out of hand than 
> prove us wrong -

Any castigation I offered was far from "out of hand".  IPGsales is
promoting a system using plainly incorrect terminology.  IMHO, this
choice of terminology speaks volumes about the crypto expertise (or lack
thereof) they have brought to the table.

> they want to talk, talk, talk but not do anything. It is
> obviously that both are dodging the issue, by taking their own narrow 
> minded view of what is and is not the truth  - both are all talk but no 
> action - a lot of bull and arbitrary  posturing, but that is all itis, pure 
> unadultarated bull - .

Consider it, then, a response in kind to your own unadulterated bull.

> I believe that since Mr. Silvernail and Mr. Metzger have
> exluded themselves, that Derek, Inccarth and Adam do have that 
> intellectual honesty to tell the truth - is that weighted too much in 
> IPGs favor.

I'll guess here that my refusal to accept IPGsales' new definitions for
accepted terms has been taken as 'excluding myself'.  So be it.  Perhaps
IPGsales is miffed that I said I would advise my clients against their
product.

> What can be more fair than that, you own members can be the entire 
> judging committee - are you afraid of the truth - if you cannot accept 
> that you are. Tthat could be your only real reason fornot  facing it. I 
> believe that many of you are now backtracfking because you are afraid of 
> the truth - we invite whatever number you might choose to try - if some 
> subset of Cyberpunks break the system, then they can publish everything -

(can anyone else parse this?)  BTW, this ain't alt.cyberpunk.  More
problems with terminology?

I don't have to break the IPG system.  It was born broken.  I am not
about to trust my key generation to people who can't even get basic
technical terms correct, much less trust them not to send copies of the
keys offsite to the NSA^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H for disposal.  (recall that
IPGsales said no copies of the keys were retained _by them_)

Snake oil is only good if you have a squeaky snake.
- -- 
Roy M. Silvernail, writing from roy@cybrspc.mn.org
"Ah, man.. you hit the nails right on the heads there.  However, I think
you drove them right into your own forehead."
        -- datsun@wasteland.spam.org (Datsun Q. Wanderer)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMSsdlhvikii9febJAQEXIwP/bEIyYaP8/meDg5Hdlg48vDlubHRVPJOL
q88FrEdbu/EQa+WFcDmAwPRxg1M5BWGVgerFG+mYZnguPDr/qZ2vMEbuAzjhe4M2
iNdtE6C+JvrZfnRWDnGDywIrRXf9BYmWAZgkj2T4inP7thANcF8El0attCe7553M
xC4lXeDLtaA=
=xZEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I don't know about Futplex, but Derek and I are well paid for
our time.  In order to find the time to fairly judge this system, I
would expect to be compensated for time spent, in advance.  After all,
I wouldn't want to see your bank account disapear should your system
be broken and the company sold.

	I would be happy to not let this money influence my judging.
After all, the money is in pocket, and I've already expressed doubts
about the system.

	So, if IPG is really interested in retaining me as a judge,
lets discuss terms & conditions.

Adam

IPG Sales wrote:

| Let Derek, Inccarth, and Adam be the aribtion committee, decide whether 
| the system is fataklly flawed or not - we will accept their findings 
| subject to only one caveat, that they have the intellectual honesty to 
| tell the truth. I believe that since Mr. Silvernail and Mr. Metzger have 
| exluded themselves, that Derek, Inccarth and Adam do have that 
| intellectual honesty to tell the truth - is that weighted too much in 
| IPGs favor.   

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

I do not recall that I said that we would retain you - The question was 
asked about unbiased judges - we simply stated that we would agree to 
you, Derek, and Immcarth as Judges - As I recall, it was Derek who asked 
for the Algorithms employed for investigation by the Cypherpunks, as he 
referred to them as a loose knit organization - but if you prefer, we 
will call them a mailing list - running fakers like us out of business 
should be its own reward 

Please do as you choose - you too  seem to be skating - please put up or 
shutup - I do not mean to be rude, and apolgise, but everytime we agree 
to something, everyone wants more - 

Appreciatively, 
Ralph

The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds
- John F. Kennedy at Rice University

I did not agree to be a judge.  If I seem to be skating, skidding, or
otherwise not in contempt of the snake oil you're selling, I
apologize.  I see your system as smoke and mirrors, and will continue
to do so until respected cryptographers tell me its not.  If you'd
like me to sit down and read the stuff you're spewing, I'd be happy
to.  For a fee.  Failing that, I'll maintain my opinion with no
further investigation.  Close minded?  I don't investigate
UFO sightings.

	To reiterate, I don't care about your system until
cryptographers I respect tell me its worth looking at, or
cryptographically interesting.  (I'll allow any two cryptographers
with two or more publications in the proceedings of an IACR sponsored
conference as respectable.)

Adam

| I do not recall that I said that we would retain you - The question was 
| asked about unbiased judges - we simply stated that we would agree to 
| you, Derek, and Immcarth as Judges - As I recall, it was Derek who asked 
| for the Algorithms employed for investigation by the Cypherpunks, as he 
| referred to them as a loose knit organization - but if you prefer, we 
| will call them a mailing list - running fakers like us out of business 
| should be its own reward 
| 
| Please do as you choose - you too  seem to be skating - please put up or 
| shutup - I do not mean to be rude, and apolgise, but everytime we agree 
| to something, everyone wants more - 

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume