> At 03:19 PM 9/1/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
>> >
>> > When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to
>> > the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the
>> > NSA access to more information than the general public got, and/or
>> > that the NSA got their
At 03:19 PM 9/1/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
> >
> > When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to
> > the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA
> > access to more information than the general public got, and/or that
> > the NSA got their access
Tim Wrote:
>> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote:
>
>> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for
>> brute-force cryptanalyis,
>
> I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though.
>You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and po
On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 11:30 AM, Faustine wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote:
>
>> Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for
>> brute-force cryptanalyis,
>
> I nev
On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote:
> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
>>> eventually.
>> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen
>> inte
Greg wrote:
> At 05:31 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
>>Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching
>>full- blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your
>>best efforts?
>
> When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to
> the N
On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
>> eventually.
> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen
> interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
> >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
> >eventually.
>
> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest
> in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason.
As I recall, t
On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
>> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
>> eventually.
>
> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen
> interest
> in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a
At 02:43 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Fausting wrote:
>Tim wrote:
> >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
> >eventually.
>If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest
>in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason.
What's the rea
Tim wrote:
>But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design
>eventually.
If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest
in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason.
Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as
At 02:41 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote:
>And by the way, if you're going to question
>SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge
>for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What
>did they think they wanted it for, farting around on
At 02:52 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote:
>
>And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are
>willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their
>betas to the NSA, you never will.
>
>~Faustine.
If knowledge of how something works breaks it, it wasn't worth
hav
--
On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:41, Faustine wrote:
> Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point
> of getting it over there in the first place. And by the way, if
> you're going to question SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you
> might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge for selling
--
On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:52, Faustine wrote:
> And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are
> willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to
> sell their betas to the NSA, you never will.
There is nothing wrong with selling betas to the NSA. I make my
crypto
At 10:02 AM 8/30/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is
>difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also
>pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade,
>terrorist-grade, etc.
>
>--Tim May
How about a marketi
Faustine wrote:
[...]
> Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point of getting it
> over there in the first place. And by the way, if you're going to question
> SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge
> for selling a boatload of the Freedom b
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:14:46PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
| A mixnet of the N extant remailers offers pretty damned good
| untraceability. Needs some work on getting remailers more robust, but
| the underlying nested encryption looks to be a formidable challenge for
| Shin Bet to crack.
http://
> Adam writes:
> As far as your opinions of our business, well, I'm really uninterested
> in getting into a pissing match with you. The reality is that
customers
> and investors give us money tp produce privacy tools, and they, not
you,
> are the ones I need to keep happy.
The reality is that pe
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 02:11 PM, Faustine wrote:
> True, of course they do. "Technology is morally neutral," sure,
> whatever.
> Yay capitalism. I still think handing over your security product beta
> on a
> silver platter in exchange for a nice fat government contract is a
> stupid,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote:
> And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are
> willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their
> betas to the NSA, you never will.
Okay, that clinches it. You're a moron.
Why *shoul
> Faustine wrote:
> I wouldn't trust either of them with anything significant.
More importantly, the claims that safeweb/triangle boy actually works
may be misleading to the people who will rely on its claims of securely
circumventing government censorship in china. The entire in/out bound
traf
Mike wrote:
"Faustine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>Adam wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is
>| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also
>| pedophile-grade, money launderer-g
"Faustine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>Adam wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is
>| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also
>| pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedo
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:16 PM, Adam Shostack wrote:
> As far as your opinions of our business, well, I'm really uninterested
> in getting into a pissing match with you. The reality is that
> customers and investors give us money tp produce privacy tools, and
> they, not you, are the
ship (e.g., of talk by freedom fighters)? Or when
Denmark finances a system to bypass crackdowns on teen erotica in the
U.S.? And so on.
Here's a brief excerpt:
Thursday August 30 3:23 AM ET
U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship -NYT
NEW YORK (Reuters) - United States government agencies
26 matches
Mail list logo
