cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-01-10 - Re: IMPORTANT: Additional information about UDCM.

Header Data

From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
Message Hash: 91edfa7783d2dc7d69c4c52bf62bfb35e827296f15342216fb9f4b1ee2593715
Message ID: <32D60910.5BB@sk.sympatico.ca>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970109205833.413A-100000@eclipse.voicenet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-10 08:19:01 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:19:01 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:19:01 -0800 (PST)
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Additional information about UDCM.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970109205833.413A-100000@eclipse.voicenet.com>
Message-ID: <32D60910.5BB@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mark M. wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 DataETRsch@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > IN RESPONSE TO THE FLAME MAIL DATA RESEARCH HAS BEEN RECEIVING:

  The 'flames' used as examples seemed to me to be nothing more than
valid questions regarding the DataETR's claims for their software.

(Big Hint / Questions from conferences with the word 'punks' in the
name are not likely to be accompanied by bowing gestures and
exclaimations of amazement at unsubstantiated claims).

> >  0.390625% is the best possible percentage. Are all of you out there
> > satisfied?
> 
> Not especially.  I'd still be interested in the design criteria used to develop
> this algorithm.  Until you publish the full source and technical data, I will
> have to assume that the algorithm is insecure.

  Keep in mind that many CypherPunks dream in numbers.

Toto

Thread