From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:12:13 +0800
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Subject: Re: libelous action
In-Reply-To: <199608270229.WAA27445@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960827023435.12189B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> 
> Mr. Curtin;
> 
> You are too kind. I suspect that 'The Pouch' is a piece of junk,
> although the lack of public disclosure makes it impossible to
> demonstrate that. If Mr. Holt would like to sue me, he's invited
> to. I'm sure he'll be at least as likely to follow up as Karl
> Denninger or "Dr." Fred C. Cohen.
> 
> Perry
> 
> C Matthew Curtin writes:
> > JOHN> Dear Mr. Curtin 
> > JOHN> Your statements about myself and my product, The
> > JOHN> POUCH are defamatory.  Since they have been made in writing and
> > JOHN> shown to and seen by other parties on the Internet, they
> > JOHN> constitute libel. Please admit to all parties that you have no
> > JOHN> personal knowledge of my product capabilities or my personal
> > JOHN> character or reputation.  Failure to do so at once will result
> > JOHN> in legal action against you personally and Megasoft.
> [...]
> > I, speaking only on behalf of myself, stand by this statement. I do
> > not apologize for my comments. If you, Mr. Holt, feel that this is a
> > personal attack against you, I regret that you've misunderstood the
> > tone and nature of my post. My statement is hardly libelous; I simply
> > observed that if your product is truly secure, there is no means by
> > which security experts can verify such claims.

As an attorney I can say that not only would I happily represent anyone
Mr. Holt sued for libel, but I would consider my contingency fee a free
lunch.  I wouldn't even bother preparing for the pre-trial hearing.

Truth, afterall, is an absolute defense to libel.

Your threat to sue is, clearly, merely an attempt to stifle any effort to
criticize your product.

I believe a more accurate legal view is that you are committing fraud by
misrepresenting "The Pouch" as a more potent implementation than it really
is.

You state:

> The Pouch uses a 64 x 64 block product cipher, a 1024 bit random
> initialization vector and the CBC technique.  Most experts agree that
> such an implementation is highly resistant to all forms of cryptographic
> attack.

This position has been refuted by at least one expert on this list.

I would remind you that each and every sale you make of this product, when
based on material misrepresentation, constitutes a fraud.  If made by
wire, as these sales seem they may, they represent wire fraud.  That's one
count of fraud and one count of wire fraud.  If a check is sent to you via
mail, that's a count of mail fraud to boot.

As you have been warned now of the flaws in your system, I don't think you
have much of a defense unless you can produce some experts to support your
own view of the cipher.  I won't hold my breath.

I am constantly amazed that people advertize new crypto products on this
list and then whine when they are literally decimated as to their
technical merit.

Go sell to children if your product can't stand the intelligence of
adults.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li