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
>> interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason.
>> Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal
>> copies?
>> Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product)
>> is in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies.
>
> Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated
> copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all.
>
> As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't
> know inside out.
>Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for
>brute-force cryptanalyis,
I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though.
> it appears you also believe the myth about the
>mighty NSA knowing more than the private sector.
>You _really_ need to get an education on these matters.
Are you actually claiming NSA implements COTS technology completely
straight off-the-shelf? And what do any of these "you poopy head
whippersnapper" comments have to do with the fact that you found a
contradiction where there was none?
Boss Tom Turkey in full strut.
~Faustine.
