From: Greg Rose <Greg_Rose@sydney.sterling.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 05:49:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: NOISE: Borenstein's Fatal Spam
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9601302323.A8042-0100000@wane3.scri.fsu.edu>
Message-ID: <pgpmoose.199602010813.60849@paganini.sydney.sterling.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


A number of people have written words to the
effect of:
  First Virtual, you lost a lot of ground with me.
  (sounds like others feel the same way, too).

I disagree. I think there is a big difference
between "knowing theoretically that X, Y and Z
are possible" and "look, I have a program that
does X, Y and Z in a certain order, and very
fast, and surprisingly successfully, and this has
major implications for the banking community".

I compare nsb's "meaning" as I understand it to
that of the paper out of Berkeley a few months
ago, which basically said "We've known for a long
time how IP snooping and replacement attacks could
theoretically succeed; here's a program that
inserts trojan horses while binaries flow across
the wire based on it." That was applauded as a
very meaningful result, even though the media
instantly picked up on it and blew it up.

I think most of the problem here is that we heard
about it in media words first, and in a reasoned
argument second. That's life. 

This is my first (and last) contribution to the
discussion. Sorry to add to the verbiage. I hope
FV and Nathaniel (as well as everyone else) keeps
working on things like this.

Greg.

Greg Rose               INTERNET: greg_rose@sydney.sterling.com  
Sterling Software       VOICE:  +61-2-9975 4777    FAX:  +61-2-9975 2921
28 Rodborough Rd.       http://www.sydney.sterling.com:8080/~ggr/
French's Forest         35 0A 79 7D 5E 21 8D 47  E3 53 75 66 AC FB D9 45
NSW 2086 Australia.     co-mod sci.crypt.research, USENIX Director.