fc@all.net (Fred Cohen) said: FC> Not my mistake - iw@all.net's mistake - only my correction. And it FC> wasn't a correction to an error in this forum - the error appeared FC> in the Risks forum - the Cypherpunks posting (which I posted) was FC> the corrected one. Am I supposed to correct mistakes in other FC> forums made by other people when I post to Cypherpunks? (let me FC> see... in 1928, a mistake was made on page 73 of the New York Times FC> related to cryptography, ...) 1) The correction makes a difference in the credibility of the statement, as you must have felt, since you made the change. Saying that a reporter called a 40-ish Navy captain a 'whizzkid' is foolish, while questioning the reasonableness of a reporter calling a 20-ish Air Force captain a 'whizzkid' is a difference of opinion (see below). Since you said it was the 'actual text', you should have posted the actual text, not your correction of it. If they sent out two messages, one correcting the other, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that they didn't at least preface it with a "sorry, we goofed" tag. FC> Even with only 4 years of service (after graduating from College), FC> 25-27 years old is no longer whizzkid age in my book. 2) As I said before, had I remained in ROTC, I would have been 24 when I was eligible to make captain. 3) At 26, I was still being referred to, by non computer-savvy people, in terms comprable to 'whizzkid'. FC> But even more FC> importantly, the readers who commented on this one error ignored the FC> main body of facts in the posting in favor of creating a conspiracy FC> theory. Next we find out from yet another story that at least part FC> of the original story posted to Risks was in error. According to FC> the second independent source, the Captain was working with the FC> Navy's support and knowledge. How much do you want to bet that the FC> story changes again by Tuesday? 4) The original story said that it was a "secret experiment" conducted in front of "Pentagon VIPs" "at the Electronic Systems Centre at Hanscom Air Force Base". Saying that the Navy was informed that this test would be made, or that Navy personnel were among the watching VIPs, is unremarkable, and does not call into question the original report. There were many security 'surveys' conducted against my systems by AFIWC (sorry, I don't remember the name of the specific group that does the surveys, but it's part of AFCERT) which I was unaware of which were authorized by the Air Force - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the "young Air Force captain" was from that group. 5) The second independent source backs up the report that the connection was made through the Internet, involving email connectivity, and with a personal computer and modem, all of which were specifically denied in the message from IW. Now that I've addressed ALL of the points in the 'denial' from IW, do you see why I characterized it as a military smokescreen? The only thing in it which remains unchallenged is that the original report is inaccurate in detail, and that there is a question as to whether someone in their mid-20s is a 'whizzkid'. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ To get my PGP public key, send me email with your public key and Subject: PGP key exchange Key fingerprint = 90 5F 1D FD A6 7C 84 5E A9 D3 90 16 B2 44 C4 F3 Junk email is NOT appreciated. If I want to buy something, I'll find you.