From: IPG Sales <ipgsales@cyberstation.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:45:34 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
In-Reply-To: <v02120d1aad50107a5006@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960220181451.16533A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 17:22 2/20/96, IPG Sales wrote:
> 
> >If you are able to break the system, and everyone knows what we mean by
> >break, then we will publicly admit that we are snake oil salesmen, and
> >all the other things that Perry Metzger and others called us.
> 
> It is by no means clear to me what "breaking the system" means. One does
> not have to be able to decipher a single message to prove a system to be
> insecure. Moreover, cryptanalysis is economics: is it more expensive to get
> the information by analyzing the crypto than it is to get it by other
> means?
> 
> Do we have to show an exploitable flaw? Or we have to do the exploit? That
> might be expensive. Who would judge the contest?
> 
> The alogrithm aside, IPG provides the intial OTP. Seems to me that IPG can
> read the messages. End of story.
> 
> 
> -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
>    PGP encrypted mail preferred.
> 
> 
> 


Lucky - you know the answer to that, several people have access to Cray's 
and the like - you must prove that we have an exploitable flaw, not 
just claim it - everyone claims it smokes and mirrors, why are you not willing 
to  go ahead and decipher a message - everyone claimed it was so easy - 
why are the cypherpunks so quite all of a sudden, we have been getting 
about 5 messages an hour up until we accepted Dereks challenge - now we 
have not received any messages for over five hours until we received 
yours. If it is so EASY, JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT!