From: cypher@cyberstation.net
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:50:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Q.E.D. - MONTGOLFIERING, SPOOFS +
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.95.961104222712.2559B-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




         I recognize that the vast majority of list readers are
         sensible human beings trying to better the profession they
         love and serve the interests they represent.  As such,
         readers of this thread do not need me, or a claque of
         snivelers, to determine the probity of the impartations being
         made. You are capable of determining that for yourselves.

         This posting is not meant to in any way denigrate your
         important work or to challenge the efforts being made by the
         vast majority of you to be objective, civil, fair and to
         examine the facts and determine the truth to the best of your
         abilities.

         Accordingly, most of the commentary included in this posting
         is directed toward the hallucinating thralldom of a dozen or
         so self proclaimed cryptographic jackadandies who beneath
         their public veneer are simply a flock of flaccid jackanapes.
         As proof of that thesis, look at the transpirations of the
         past few weeks.

         Preamble:

         In law school, potential attorneys are drilled in the three
         prong postulate:

         1. If you can argue the facts, argue the facts, the
            evidence.

         2. If you cannot argue the facts, then argue the law,
            Shannon and Sneider.

         3. If you cannot argue the facts, or the law, then attack
            the opposition, the people presenting the facts.

         Another statement parable is "if you do not like the message
         attack the messenger."

         This stratagem can be applied not only to the courtroom but
         to any affray.

         Evidence:

         1. The cabal of pedants has looked at the IPG web site in
            detail, as evinced by their frequent citing of materials
            that were not theretofore set out in any of the postings
            made to this list. Where did they get it?  Obviously from
            the web site.

         2. They quickly discerned that they could not possibly argue
            the facts as proved by the fact that not a single one of
            them have deigned to do so.  They quickly realized that
            algorithm was unassailable from their extremely limited
            low level of competence.  Actually, it cannot be attacked from
            any level of competence as close analysis of same will reveal.

            I bet none of that eau de vie crowd has ever cracked real
            ciphertext in their life. They live in a self hypnotic fantasy
            mirage world. Obviously, they are incapable of breaking real
            encryption systems. Oh, they have posited all kinds of
            crackbrain scheme for breaking systems under some silly
            hypothetical scenario - most of which have been forseen
            and solved decades ago by people who are real professional
            cryptographers. 

            I could pose a theory of broad jumping from New York to London
            too. All I would have to do is to jump two feet high and be
            traveling at a velocity of roughly 63,360,000 feet per second,
            only about .067 c, and I COULD make it. Some of the
            self presumed cryptographic jackadandies' hairbrain schemes
            are even more obtuse than that. 

         3. Unable to attack the algorithm because of their gross
            impotence, they started citing their law. They attacked my
            position that the stream cipher was an OTP, citing
            Shannon as proof that was not the case. In essence
            invoking the oracular doctrine of Shannon infallibility.
            They skim over Shannon, read Schneier and then get on their
            pulpit and preach their version of the Gospel and to all of us
            mere mortals  because they are totally incapable of solving
            real life applications of cryptography. They spout meaningless
            turkey gobbleddegook instead of actually doing it. As noted
            before,

                 their information = P log_base_infinity P,

             and as is equally evident, 

               their disinformation = P log_base_0 P  

            I acknowledged the truly unique contribution that Shannon
            has made to cryptography, communications and related
            fields and the coessential redound on Schneier for the
            codification of cryptography.  However, my position is
            that Shannon mathematically proved in absolutism only the
            limitations that we must work within, not what can be
            done within those delimiters.

            Accordingly, I argued that the disputation was a matter
            of semantics. I agreed that the algorithm did not have
            infinite entropy but it was still an OTP because it
            fulfilled the other basic tenants of an OTP in all
            respects saving entropy. I further asserted that the
            entropy question was immaterial because the entropy of
            the algorithm was far greater than any possible practical
            need, by tens of thousands of orders of magnitude.  Such
            rationale fell on parti pris deaf erudite ears.

         4. As a result, I realized that from my vantage point such
            an argument was counter productive at the very best.  As a
            result, I took the OTP issue off the table by agreeing,
            as I had stated on numerous occasions, that the algorithm
            produced noncommunicative stream ciphers, PRNG streams
            that manifested remarkable random like properties, though
            they certainly are not random.

         5. Deprived of their dogmatic dictums with respect to IT,
            those detractors, like all disconcerted confuters since
            the dawn of human controversy, turned to the use of
            sophomoric fustigation. They imagine themselves as
            a clique of cryptographic superdupers; but in this
            case they were overwhelmed by the strength of the algorithm,
            which pricked their hyper-inflate egos. That in turn, led to
            their futile efforts to try to strike back and cudgel the
            source of their foil as they vented their acute frustrations.

            In this case, since many of them are obviously very
            bright and articulate, their resultant falderal is very
            adroit and humorous.  Even though being the butt of their
            lampoonery, I nonetheless was highly amused, got some
            good laughs, found it entertaining and was flattered by
            the expended efforts of the author(s).

            Although I recognize that it was not intended to be so, I
            found it to be exemplary raillery. Levity can help all of
            us to keep serious matters in perspective and I applaud
            the authors for their jocose entertainment.  Keep it up,
            not only is it fun, it also helps everyone to see through
            the smoke screens in order to discern the real underlying
            truths.

         6. Note that during the whole discourse and postings made to
            this thread, not a single individual has critiqued
            the algorithm itself. Not many of them will even own up to
            having looked at the algorithm, much less having
            attempted to analyze it and assess its strengths or
            weaknesses.  Get real.  How many readers really believe
            that all of those fast cryptographic guns would ignore the
            real, very simple, algorithm in unison if they stood a ghost 
            of a chance of cracking it? Any talk of a mediocre pecunary
            reward for breaking the algorithm is giddy poppycock and
            everyone knows it. They would much rather have the 
            satisfaction and pride that they were the one that gigged me, 
            the only rub being that that is patently impossible .   

            Each individual in that elitist cabal obviously salivates
            at the opportunity to crack the algorithm and throw it
            back in my face since my postings have raised seemingly
            heretic controversy. It should be clear to all readers of
            this thread, that with a possible exception or two, those
            detractors have looked at the algorithm and realize it
            far exceeds their meager cryptanalytic abilities.
            Accordingly, it is transpicuous that they have resorted to
            trying to use their turkey flapdoodle to cloud the issue since
            they have nothing of substance to reason upon. They could not
            crack their way out of a wet Kleenex with an unlimited
            number of gigaton thermo nuclear weapons. 

            Perry Metzger and others have even used inculcative
            factoids to try to claim that the algorithm had been
            broken.  What they were referring to of course was the
            algorithm that was posted a few months ago.

            As several then cypherpunks know, that first algorithm
            was posted to try to get some of the list sharpshooters
            committed. I believed that those intellectual cowards
            would leap at the opportunity to display their prowess if
            confronted by weakness; while on the other hand, that same
            small flock of turkeys would inevitably run for cover,
            flapping their wings,  and spluttering out puny excuses
            and their turkey gobbledygook if confronted by strength,
            just as they are now doing. 

            I wanted to show up gross hypocrisy for what it is,
            pure spineless cowardice by that gashouse, in more ways
            than one, gang.  As a result, I posted that first
            algorithm with the intention to answer back with the real
            algorithm fairly quickly.

            However, a few cypherpunk confidants recommended that IPG
            provide the capability for the users to generate all
            their own keys in order to erase that stigma against the
            algorithm. In addition, some of them also urged me to
            prove some of the statistical contentions that I was
            making instead of just stating them. Accordingly, I
            decided to do those two things and to reconstruct the web
            site accordingly.

            Further, one very helpful cypherpunk gave me a number of
            references which required me to go to the University of
            Texas in Austin in order to research them. In doing that,
            and as result of that research and testing, I changed the
            algorithm slightly; most importantly, from using a linear
            congruential generator as the method of providing the
            algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator
            method..  That is, I added two lines to the seed generator
            engine, to wit:

                       DO                                   (ADDED)
                         JV = JV+1
                         IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0
                         A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV]
                       WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1         (ADDED)
                             or in effect
                       (WHILE  A[JV]  > 16383  )

            Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved.

            NOTE: The 53 is a variable.

            All this took time, and before we could completely
            regroup, 5 months had passed into history.

            That does not negate what I was trying to establish
            though. That is, that the alleged highly  puissant
            sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant
            intellectual cowards feeding everyobne cryptographic pablum.
            They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and
            like all fraudlent impostors completely, and very
            conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face
            strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white
            sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they
            are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves,
            and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery,
            self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious
            giddiness.


         Having set out my view of the derogators, the remainder of
         this posting, excepting the one obvious paragraph, is intended
         for all readers. I trust that most readers will not be diverted,
         or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software,
         is becoming infecte with obsessive compulsive technical interests
         that are attempting to lead  us down the primrose path to
         intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much
         lower productivity and fewer users.

         Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry
         being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at
         all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as
         a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23
         fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary
         paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately
         productivity.  Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but
         supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the
         interests we serve, more efficient and more productive.

         Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to,
         among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian
         tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically
         impaired users.  I am not alone in raising this issue of
         everything becoming too complex and too complicated for
         potential users.  My very weak voice is merely being added to
         the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison,
         Andreessen, Jobs, and other industry illuminaries. 

         Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the
         technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use
         of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use,
         we will impose defacto standards that only the technically
         exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use.
         That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm
         and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes
         to use, and work with.

         Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs.
         For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for
         the problems relating to conducting commerce over the
         Internet.  Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and
         other encryption systems fill very important exigencies.
         Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user
         applications:

            1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet
               communication privacy between two, or a group of,
               individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session
               encryption keys, and other work impediments of that
               genre can be eliminated.

               While applicable to everyone, this is especially true
               of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other
               non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to
               clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers,
               insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement
               personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a
               necessary implement used to perform their job.

               EUREKA is much faster, more secure,  easier to use, and
               more flexible than other systems for this application.
               As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed
               Internet - intranet systems.

               It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or
               a small group of friends and family.

            2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or
               data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In
               this application it is unsurpassed because differential
               analysis, and other attacks that can be made to
               evolving files is rendered impossible and it is
               extremely fast. It is simply the best product available
               for this application, though it has some limitations in 
               terms of partial file access and reencryption that will be
               relieved in the months ahead.

            3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over
               the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to
               military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily
               encrypt and transmit software products of all types to
               an unlimited number of users.

            Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies
            and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for
            test and evaluation under the newly announced limited
            moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at:

                      netprivacy.com

            As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible
                  systems:

                  1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk
                     files from hackers and interlopers for    $19.50

                  2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other
                     files for transmission on Internet for    $29.50

                  3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for
                     trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50


            All prices include S&H but NOT state taxes where
            applicable. Our unconditional money back guarantee also
            includes guaranteed free updates, currently being
            developed by independent software developers, through
            December 31, 1997.
     
            I realize that there are many Sancho Panza minds out there,
            who mistakenly think they speak for all list members, and will
            then go and say that no one will bother with the product.
            They have already been proved wrong. They are not by any 
            means Rozinantes, they are mere inferior Rozins, Playtyrs at
            best,  Kyrie  Eleison kryson.  

            In addition, Coderpunks, Cypherpunks, and other Internet
            users have committed themselves to helping IPG to improve
            the EUREKA system, to make it even easier to use, to
            significantly increase the performance ( by at least an
            order of decimal magnitude), to develop it on other
            platforms, and the other things that must be done if it is
            to achieve its potential. Some of these product revisions
            and enhancements should be available late this year and
            others next year.  Stay tuned for the results of these
            efforts.

            Such efforts are in response to our offer set out at:

                          netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html


            Therein, as you may know, we explain how we intend to
            develop and market the IPG products using Internet. As
            described, instead of establishing an inhouse organization
            to do those things, as well as system testing & evaluation
            and system engineering, we plan to use independent
            developers and agents over Internet. That way, effort will
            be rewarded on a competitive merit basis.  We believe this
            will be the wave of the future..  Exceptional talent,
            working out of their own homes, located in the place of
            their choice.  These people will be creating product that
            will be marketed by other creative people working from
            their place of choice.

            Find out how you can participate at.

                     netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html

            IPG will NOT COMPETE with its software developers or its
            marketing agents. If you can build a better mousetrap, or
            invigorate the marketing effort, you will be rewarded
            commensurably.  Even if it is not a better mousetrap, you
            will still receive pecuniary participation for your
            efforts.  There is a huge upside potential with very
            little downside risk, except for your time. Others have
            got in on the ground floor of opportunities like this,
            here is your chance. This offer is of course currently
            limited to U.S.  and Canadian citizens.

            The software development kit has been reduced down from
            $395.00 to $39.50 on a limited offer basis.

            We anticipate that we will withdraw these limited offers
            on December 31, 1996.

         See for yourself. Prove it to yourself. Also, remember, the
         algorithm is available at:

                   http://netprivacy.com/algo.html

         We would be very proud to work with you in a synergistic 
         effort to improve ourselves and to produce products for the
         cryptographicand other markets. Contact us oprivately if you are
         interested,
       
         With kindest regards,

         Don Wood,




















> ===================================================================
>
>                   Donald R. Wood
>                   ipgsales@cyberstation.net
>
> =================================================================== 
>
> Some people are more certain of their own opinions than they are of
> facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle
>
> --------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum ---------------------


 linear
            congruential generator as the method of providing the
            algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator
            method.  That is, I added two lines to the seed generator
            engine, to wit:

                       DO                                   (ADDED)
                         JV = JV+1
                         IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0
                         A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV]
                       WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1         (ADDED)
                             or in effect
                       (WHILE  A[JV]  > 16383  )

            Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved.

            NOTE: The 53 is a variable.

            Running statistical tests on the encryptor stream with
            the two lines included versus excluding the two lines,
            revealed that using them was much stronger from every
            vantage point. There is sound mathematical reasons why
            that is true, which succinctly as possible is because it
            generates a more even distribution of the seed values,
            ( 0,..,16383 ), with the addition of the two lines.  I had
            experimented with the modified form before I posted the
            first algorithm but had tentatively rejected it
            because it decreased overall performance and did not seem
            to be necessary - I simply did not recognize its
            importance at that time.

            However, subsequent testing caused me to change my mind
            because the standard deviations, Chi Squares, 1st
            differences and each and every one of the other
            statistical tests proved that the addition of the two
            lines produced more random like resultants. In addition
            the revised algorithm, with the two added lines, makes it
            impossible to block the algorithm output stream in the
            absence of the specific As, Bs and Cs used.

            All this took time, and before we could completely
            regroup, 5 months had passed into history.

            That does not negate what I was trying to establish
            though. That is, that the alleged highly  puissant
            sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant
            intellectual cowards.  They leap like wilding pit
            bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all impostors
            completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational
            reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as
            a school of great white sharks plying the waters of
            cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty
            harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up
            with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group
            veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness.


         Having set out my view of the derogators, the rainder of this
         posting, is intended for all readers. I trust that such
         readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic
         view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infected
         with obsessive interests that are attempting to lead us down
         the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will
         eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users.

         Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry
         being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at
         all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as
         a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23
         fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary
         paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately
         productivity.  Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but
         supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the
         interests we serve, more efficient and more productive.

         Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to,
         among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian
         tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically
         impaired users.  I am not alone in raising this issue of
         everything becoming too complex and too complicated for
         potential users.  My very weak voice is merely being added to
         the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison,
         Andreessen, Jobs, and other illuminaries of our industry.

         Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the
         technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use
         of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use,
         we will impose defacto standards that only the technically
         exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use.
         That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm
         and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes
         to use, and work with.

         Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs.
         For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for
         the problems relating to conducting commerce over the
         Internet.  Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and
         other encryption systems fill very important exigencies.
         Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user
         applications:

            1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet
               communication privacy between two, or a group of,
               individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session
               encryption keys, and other work impediments of that
               genre can be eliminated.

               While applicable to everyone, this is especially true
               of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other
               non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to
               clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers,
               insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement
               personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a
               necessary implement used to perform their job.

               EUREKA is much faster, more secure,  easier to use, and
               more flexible than other systems for this application.
               As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed
               Internet - intranet systems.

               It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or
               a small group of friends and family.

            2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or
               data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In
               this application it is unsurpassed because differential
               analysis, and other attacks that can be made to
               evolving files is rendered impossible and it is
               extremely fast. It is simply the best product available
               for this application.

            3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over
               the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to
               military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily
               encrypt and transmit software products of all types to
               an unlimited number of users.

            Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies
            and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for
            test and evaluation under the newly announced limited
            moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at:

                      netprivacy.com

            As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible
                  systems:

                  1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk
                     files from hackers and interlopers for    $19.50

                  2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other
                     files for transmission on Internet for    $29.50

                  3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for
                     trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50


          rant 
way than _any_ government has ever in history behaved