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|