A gauntlet thrown down by PC-Magic?

[bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org>]

On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 at 00:02:27 -0800, "Alex Woolfson" 
<abdiel@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Hey guys
> 
> Just FYI here is the response I got from PC-Magic.

>> Thanks for the feedback.  We are considering an established 
>> standard.
>> 
>> BTW, for all the "crap" we get from supposed crypto experts 
>> no one has come close to breaking our method.  It does make 
>> for humorous reading tho.
>> 
>> Scott

> Anyone care to take him up on his challenge?  
> Please say yes.  :-)
> 
> Alex

What fucking challenge? Is he or are you so dimwitted as to
think that people have nothing better to do than provide
Scott and his cretinous friends with a first-hand education?
A "challenge" would be something like: 

    "PC-Magic has encrypted a [file/message/whatever] 
    containing ecash in the amount of $50,000, has 
    deposited with [an arm's-length third party] the 
    original text, the encrypted [file/message/whatever], 
    the software that decrypts it and the [password or 
    passphrase], and hereby agrees to leave the ecash
    prize current and unrepudiated until [deadline date],
    after which we will re-deposit the ecash and instruct
    the [third party] to reveal the message and demonstrate
    its decryption as a proof that the challenge was 
    genuine."

The prize amount would have to be relatively high since these 
people have not published technical information and no one has 
any real interest in investing time and money to demonstrate 
that people who appear to be idiots are, in fact, idiots. The 
$10K and lower challenges that have been issued in the past 
have mostly come from known entities with published algorithms.

Scott's characterization, "the 'crap' we get from supposed 
crypto experts." is indicative that he really didn't read and 
understand much of the criticism. It is typical of the 
ignorant who have embarked on a flawed course to become 
annoyed at well-founded criticism and to belittle their 
critics.

"...no one has come close to breaking our method" is indicative 
only of the lack of motivation on the part of qualified 
cryptanalysts, most of whom have much better things to do. It 
is the responsibility of the advocate of a cryptographic 
technique to raise the level of interest in testing it 
sufficiently high that it will in fact be thoroughly tested. 

To claim that a technique has never been compromised is to 
claim nothing at all. I have a message I encrypted when I was 
16 that no one has yet cracked. I could challenge PC-Magic 
to crack it. If they were sufficiently introspective to be 
able to examine their reasons for ignoring my "challenge" 
they would understand why theirs is not a challenge. OTOH if 
they had that many brain cells to rub together they would 
already have understood the logic of the criticisms they so 
glibly dismiss.

Perhaps a more satisfying exercise would be if PC-Magic were 
to encrypt a ton of the worst child pornography, hate 
literature and conspiratorial assassination plans imaginable, 
then present themselves and the computer containing the 
encrypted goodies to the office of the Bavarian prosecutor.

CryptoMongerII