On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 at 00:02:27 -0800, "Alex Woolfson" <abdiel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hey guys
Just FYI here is the response I got from PC-Magic.
Thanks for the feedback. We are considering an established standard.
BTW, for all the "crap" we get from supposed crypto experts no one has come close to breaking our method. It does make for humorous reading tho.
Scott
Anyone care to take him up on his challenge? Please say yes. :-)
Alex
What fucking challenge? Is he or are you so dimwitted as to think that people have nothing better to do than provide Scott and his cretinous friends with a first-hand education? A "challenge" would be something like: "PC-Magic has encrypted a [file/message/whatever] containing ecash in the amount of $50,000, has deposited with [an arm's-length third party] the original text, the encrypted [file/message/whatever], the software that decrypts it and the [password or passphrase], and hereby agrees to leave the ecash prize current and unrepudiated until [deadline date], after which we will re-deposit the ecash and instruct the [third party] to reveal the message and demonstrate its decryption as a proof that the challenge was genuine." The prize amount would have to be relatively high since these people have not published technical information and no one has any real interest in investing time and money to demonstrate that people who appear to be idiots are, in fact, idiots. The $10K and lower challenges that have been issued in the past have mostly come from known entities with published algorithms. Scott's characterization, "the 'crap' we get from supposed crypto experts." is indicative that he really didn't read and understand much of the criticism. It is typical of the ignorant who have embarked on a flawed course to become annoyed at well-founded criticism and to belittle their critics. "...no one has come close to breaking our method" is indicative only of the lack of motivation on the part of qualified cryptanalysts, most of whom have much better things to do. It is the responsibility of the advocate of a cryptographic technique to raise the level of interest in testing it sufficiently high that it will in fact be thoroughly tested. To claim that a technique has never been compromised is to claim nothing at all. I have a message I encrypted when I was 16 that no one has yet cracked. I could challenge PC-Magic to crack it. If they were sufficiently introspective to be able to examine their reasons for ignoring my "challenge" they would understand why theirs is not a challenge. OTOH if they had that many brain cells to rub together they would already have understood the logic of the criticisms they so glibly dismiss. Perhaps a more satisfying exercise would be if PC-Magic were to encrypt a ton of the worst child pornography, hate literature and conspiratorial assassination plans imaginable, then present themselves and the computer containing the encrypted goodies to the office of the Bavarian prosecutor. CryptoMongerII