Re: Q.E.D P+P == talk the talk - but - P+P != walk the walk

[cypher@cyberstation.net]

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Adam Shostack wrote:

> cypher@cyberstation.net wrote:
> 
> | I withdrew the OTP claim and posted the ENTIRE algorithm, in a posting
> |  
> |            dated 10-24-96
> |            addressed to Adam Shostack,
> |                     and titled
> | Montgolfiering P Information= P log_base_infinity P, 
> 
> I never saw this post.  I speak up only becauase quite a few people
> have sent me mail asking for it, and I've never seen it.


I do not know what is going on. Some people seem to have seen it while
others have not. I got a copy of it from cypherpunks. I do not know
what happen to your copy. It is primarily an abbreviated
disclosure of the real algorithm - a full copy is at:

            netprivacy.com/algo.html

The primary purpose of the posting was to try to stop Perry Metzger's
factoid that the algorithm had been broken by Adam. What he was speaking
to was the fact that a previous algorithm, which some people, perhaps most
people, knew was not the real algorithm, was alleged to have been broken.
A careful review of the new algorithm reveals why the break was
alleged, instead of a real, as witnessed by the fact that known plain
text might be used to recover the key for a specific message but would
not be an overall system break. In a way, that is entirely beside the
point since the "old" algorithm was only a ploy on my part in order to get
some additional people to review the real algorithm. I was successful in
that regard.

> 
> | Since, then they they have suddenly grown silent. Nary a peep out of the
> | previously oh so vocal. It is obvious that they are totally clueless about
> | how to go about breaking the  algorithm, or they would have jumped at the
> | opportunity to add a notch to their analytical gun.  As becomes quickly
> | apparent, the algorithm cannot be broken except by brute force, which is
> | patently impossible.
> 
> 	Perhaps you'd care to share the mail that you sent me with the
> list?  I refer to a message with Message-ID
> Pine.BSI.3.95.961023194449.4317A-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net
> 
> Adam
> 
I would be glad to do so , however; as you know, there was another
principal involved in that message. Upon receipt of his approval, I will
be glad to share it with the list. I would also appreciate your and his
response before such posting. That is, where you disagree with my
contentions, and why since you have been silent on that matter. 


With every best wish,

Donald R. Wood 
> 
> 
>