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 NSA, are you
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
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 powerful
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 or
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 people
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 beta
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
--
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
--
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 a
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
having.
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
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
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, this was an
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.
This report says the U.S. Gov't. has plans to make SafeWeb, the Web
proxy company it helped fund through the CIA, available to Chinese
citizens who want to bypass their government's censorship.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010830/wr/tech_china_internet_report_dc_1.
html
(I can already
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
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, freedom
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
