Don Woods -- Crypto Creationist

At 02:18 AM 11/24/96 -0600, snow wrote:

>     The algorythm cannot be considered secure until it has been 
>peer-reviewed. They refuse to release the algorythm for review, simply saying
>that "you can't break the code" therefore "it is secure". 

Furthermore, in "Real Science", the burden of proof is on the one making
the claim, not on the one everyone else to disprove it.

So far Mr. Wood has not provided any *proof* as to the substance of his
claims.  He has provided some of the more interesting rants I have seen of
late.  (Analysis of his style of posting is probibly better left to the
Psychceramics list than Cypherpunks.)

Until he posts the algorythm (or at least some basis as to why we should
trust his claims), his claims are worthless.  (As they would say on
talk.origins: "Evidence is the coin of the realm here!".)

The reason that names like Shamir and Rivest and the host of others are
trusted is because their material has been reviewed by the rest of the
cryptographic community for errors.  They have a reputation in the
community.  Mr. Woods does not.  He has to earn it.  So far he has not done
so...

---
|              "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD."              |
|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer:         |
| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!"  | Ignore the man      |
|`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key  | behind the keyboard.|
|         http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/       |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:

> At 02:18 AM 11/24/96 -0600, snow wrote:
> 
> >     The algorythm cannot be considered secure until it has been 
> >peer-reviewed. They refuse to release the algorythm for review, simply saying
> >that "you can't break the code" therefore "it is secure". 
> 
> Furthermore, in "Real Science", the burden of proof is on the one making
> the claim, not on the one everyone else to disprove it.
> 
> So far Mr. Wood has not provided any *proof* as to the substance of his
> claims.  He has provided some of the more interesting rants I have seen of
> late.  (Analysis of his style of posting is probibly better left to the
> Psychceramics list than Cypherpunks.)
> 
> Until he posts the algorythm (or at least some basis as to why we should
> trust his claims), his claims are worthless.  (As they would say on
> talk.origins: "Evidence is the coin of the realm here!".)
> 
You are correct other than for the fact that we have posted the
algorithm:

       http://www.netprivacy.com


And we have proven that it is unbreakable, as most of you are aware. Just 
look at the algorithm and you will understand why! It is self evident as
proven by Shannon. 

Also, there is no "s" in my last name, it is Wood, though call me
anything that you like. 

Also, as far as Perry not responding to me, he does but not on the
Cypherpunks list anymore. The other list is not personal, so we correspond
in private,

With kindest regards,

Don Wood