From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:58:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: DejaNews all over again
Message-ID: <199511112036.MAA24650@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 8 Nov 1995, Jeff Weinstein, self-styled "Electronic Munitions
Expert", from Netscape Communications: 

>> Meanwhile people are having their PGP keyrings collected, their passwords
>> monitorred, and all of the information -- even information which they have
>> NOT posted to Usenet, information that is simply on their personal hard
>> drives, or on a private corporate network that is behind a firewall --
>> collected by anyone who actualy understands *how* to use Netscape
>> Navigator's standard features to do it.
>
>  Please show us some proof.  All you have done is post unfounded
>allegations backed up by flawed logic and a misunderstanding of the
>technology.  Send me a URL, and I will point my navigator at it.  If you
>can collect my PGP key ring you can gloat here or anywhere else. 

I think "Jeff" ... Mr. unofficial not speakng for the company Netscape
spokesperson, I think that you should rethink what you're suggesting. 
Your tactics won't serve your personal interests on this one.  I really
would recommend that you come clean.  This is not about "gloating".  I 
really take very little pleasure in this.

It's really not a good plan, to suggest that I contravene your "license
agreement" or break the laws of my country to satisfy some ego-centred
game on your part not to face the FACT, that you have been caught. 

Not arrested yet, but you have been found out.

Or as I wrote some weeks ago, in some oddly inspired flash ... You're
"Hoist by your own 'petar" ... (which is a quote that Johnnie Cochrane
used during the OJ trial ... a quote taken from Shakespeare which
*translated* means that you've been blown up by your own bomb.)

I am not nearly so *SLOW* as to offer you ammunition to use against me.
Your license agreement -- pardon me -- Netscape's license agreement
explicitly sets out the limitations underwhich I must function.  An 
agreement, I respect.  It states in part. 

> RESTRICTED USE.  You may not copy the software, except for backup or
> archival purposes.  Any such copy made by you shall be subject to this
> Agreement and shall contain all of Netscape's notices regarding
> copyrights, trademarks and other proprietary rights as contained in the
> Software originally provided to you.  You may not lend, rent, lease or
> otherwise transfer the Software.  The Software is protected by the
> copyright laws of the United States and international copyright
> treaties.

Ya see ... "Jeff" ... I actually respect that ... and I'll operate within
those constraints on this one.  Later the Agreement continues with more
legalistic boiler plate and says,

> TITLE.  Title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in
> and to the Software and Documentation shall remain in Netscape and/or
> its suppliers.  This Agreement does not include the right to sublicense
> the Software and is personal to you and therefore may not be assigned
> (by operation of law or otherwise) or transferred without the prior
> written consent of Netscape.  You acknowledge that the Software in
> source code form remains a confidential trade secret of Netscape and/or
> its suppliers and therefore you agree not to attempt to decipher,
> decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer the Software or allow others
> to do so, except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit
> such restriction.  You further agree not to modify or create derivative
> works of the Software.

Now how do you expect me ... poor little "Alice" ... to exploit KNOWN
documented and undocumented security holes in Netscape Navigator ... holes
which Netscape willfully and deliberately or alternatively through the
grossest of negligence, engineered into the product, when I have
implicitly agreed not to violate your License Agreement. 

My hands are kindof tied, aren't they "Jeff".  

I need written permission to do that, and considerring that Netscape
hasn't even *bothered* to acknowledge email which was sent to them, email
which asked whether they will voluntarily open up their experimental MIME
objects to IETF review, I somehow doubt that permission will be
forthcoming. 

You can't suck and blow at the same time Jeff. 

Maybe, what I'll do ... is snail mail Netscape and ask for explicit
permission to do just that.  I'll also ask for access to all of the source
code, and maybe at the same time ask for the email address of Dr James H.
Clark, since the Netscape postmaster doesn't seem to reply to email.

Afterall, he DOES know about this issue, doesn't he??  Dr. James H. Clark 
has been briefed, I hope ...

Let's see ... Dr. James H Clark, founder of Silicon Graphics Inc, and 
co-founder of Netscape Communications Corp. does know about this "itsy 
bitsy" "teeny-weeny" problem doesn't he??  

I mean there _will_ be questions as to what he knew and when he knew it and
what he did about it.  But that'll be his baby ... and I'll let him speak 
for himself on that one. 

But the other question ... the question of what the other co-founder of
Netscape Communications Corp., Marc Andreessen, knew is not a subject for 
speculation.  We know that.

Marc Andreessen, vice-president of technology at Netscape, and creator of 
NCSA Mosaic's knowledge is clear.  We "know" what Marc knew. 

Marc won't be able to pull an "Ollie North" and redact the public domain
electronic archives.  It's clear what he knew and when he knew it. 

A simple one line command tells all ... a command like, maybe:

           mget rfc* |grep Andreessen

run at one of the public domain archives might give us some clues and
pointers to anyone who might be familiar with how the net works.  Then a
little follow up and search of some mailing lists ... lists of the
Internet Engineering Task Force ... cross-referencing the records of the
IETF might tell us what Marc knew and when. 

NOTHING which has been written, is gone, is it Jeff??  There are no hidden
acts, and there are no solitary acts when it comes to the Network.  And 
isn't that a shame, "Jeff"??

But then what would I know about such things ... I don't *understand* the 
technology, do I "Jeff", my boy??

Simple question, once again ... does Netscape have any comment to make?  
Or does it continue to say "no comment".  

Will Dr. James H. Clark, and/or Marc Andreessen please step forward 
and address this issue at this time?  The international community is 
beginning to loose its patience.


> 	--Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
> Netscape Communication Corporation
> jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
> Any opinions expressed above are mine.


Alice de 'nonymous ...

                                  ...just another one of those...


P.S.  This post is in the public domain.
                  C.  S.  U.  M.  O.  C.  L.  U.  N.  E.