"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
Allan Bailey says:
I'm willing to wager that 2.6 (and maybe 2.5) MIT'd PGP versions are hacked by the NSA to put in a backdoor. ^^^^^^^^^^ (emphasis added.)
I'll bet you a C-note, Perry.
Done for $100.
Now how do you propose to prove or disprove this?
The commonly selected way to settle such things is to select a neutral referee to adjudicate based on available evidence. The source code is public, so it should it should be trivial to read it and make a decision as to whether anything untoward has been done. I'll accept any reasonably expert referee -- my selection of choice would be Hal Finney since he is a well known cypherpunk, is strongly familiar with the code and would recognise any tampering.
Well, Hal wanted to bet me too, but you were first. If he's still willing, I'll agree to him also.
Tampering may be defined given what you are claiming as the presense of what a reasonable cryptographer would refer to as a "back door".
Agreed.
Once we've settled on a judge and they've accepted the charge (we may need to pay the person for their time), we present our evidence to the person and allow them to make a decision.
Agreed.
I'll happily bet any larger sum, too, if you like.
I'm a University programmer/sysadmin. I.e., poor, but with a good InterNet connection. :)
I'd also request that a neutral third party hold the stakes. At your choice the party can be the judge or another individual mutually acceptable.
Sounds fine with me. If Hal, or another agreed upon judge is willing, I'll send my cheque in. -- Allan Bailey, allan@elvis.tamu.edu | "Freedom is not free." Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations | allan.bailey@tamu.edu Esperanto: MondLingvo, lingvo internacia.