From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:58:20 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Stanglehold / Re: Stronghold
Message-ID: <199710040437.GAA21179@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Alan wrote:

> C2Net should have demanded proof instead of getting defensive.  That
> worries me, not because of "hidden backdoors", but because it shows lack of
> confidence in their own products. But lack of confidence has nothing to do
> with actual strength of the product.

Let's think about this for a moment.

RSA is so confident in their product that they openly challenge 
people to prove its strength or weakness, even offering them money
out of their own pocket if they cn do so.

C2Net, at the merest whisper by the least credible of persons, 
launches into action an army of litigators to threaten said
individual with dire consequences if they fail to duck and cover,
not to mention 'shut the fuck up.'

Hhhmmmm......

> If you do have evidence and refuse to post it, then you are just helping
> C2Net.

If I had evidence of a backdoor in C2Net's Stronghold software, and 
I met with so little support when attacked by them, I would refuse to
post it.
Why? To let all of C2Net's staunch defenders feel all the more confident
in placing their big, hairy balls in the StrangleHold of C2Net's
software.

Of course, if I were C2Net and I *did* have a backdoor built into my
software, I would probably try to link any criticism of my product with
the rantings of mentally unstable paranoics.
Which begs the question, is Dimitri the 'foil' of C2Net, or a 'creation'
of C2Net?

TruthMonger
"Creator of the 2-way mirror."