DES Trolls

[Eric Cordian <emc@wire.insync.net>]

Vin McLellan, apparently not satisfied with only one flame, makes this
response to a very conveniently appearing anonymous remailer troll
saying something silly about Matt Blaze:
 
> The real Matt Blaze would also not be making these absurd and false
> claims that some mysterious "book" describing a cryptosystem identical
> or equivalent to the RSA public key cryptosystem was published "years"
> before Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Len Adelman first published their
> RSA PKC algorithm in April, 1977.  (It's well documented in the
> Cypherpunk archives, Codrian assures us;-)
 
Here the disingenuous Vin gives his own description of my prior post,
which he then proceeds to loudly refute, and I certainly didn't use
the word "identical" or the word "equivalent." I stated that
descriptions of "that which is now known as RSA" have appeared in
print, and that the one-way characteristics of the RSA trap-door
function were also previously known.
 
The arguments for invalidation of the RSA patent were based on two
central claims.  First, that work which contained similar material was
distributed by preprint and presented at conferences more than one
year before the RSA patent was applied for.  This would include the
Diffie-Hellman paper on "Multiuser Cryptographic Techniques", the
early Merkle-Hellman work, and the Pohlig-Hellman work.
 
The second claim that may be made against RSA is that the system is
"obvious." Support for this claim may be found in books dating all the
way back to the 19th century which discuss both the cryptographic
usefulness of one-way functions, and the factorization of the product
of two primes as one example of such a function.
 
Quoting "Cyberlaw":
 
    "There are a number of references in the prior art, moreover,
     to using the problem of factoring composite numbers in
     cryptography, dating back to the 19th century.
 
    "In 1870, a book by William S. Jevons described the
     relationship of one-way functions to cryptography and went
     on to discuss specifically the factorization problem used
     to create the "trap-door" in the RSA system."
 
> There was no such book. Cordian's statement is just not true.
 
Only a complete moron would place himself in the position of trying to
prove such an all-encompassing negative.
 
> (Actually, I'd bet that even Robert Hettinga knows that this is
> untrue.)
 
People_insulted_by_Vin_in_this_thread++;
 
> The real Matt Blaze would not have 15 donors -- as Mr. Cordian reports
> -- but be stimied on how to get five more.
 
If you had correctly read the FAQ, you would see that we have 5
sponsors, and 15 open sponsorships.  We are not stimied, we are
writing and debugging many thousands of lines of extremely complex
code, and do not wish to be distracted by further marketing activities
at this time.
 
> I wish Mr. Cordian well in his algebraic attack on DES
 
All together now.  "Bwahahahahahahhahaahah!"
 
This concludes my response to Vin, who may now return to his regularly
scheduled trolling lessons.
 
Now, if this weren't all hilarious enough, Matt Blaze, who is usually
smarter than this, feels an urgent need to leap in with...
 
> Whatever this is about, however, I assure you that any use of my name
> in connection with a solicitation for funds for some sort of
> "analytical DES cracking" effort, or any suggestion that I'm involved
> in such a project, is absolutely false and perhaps fraudulent.
 
Let me state for the record that the DES Analytic Crack Project has
made no claims about any of the prople working on it, other than that
they are competent implementors of complex algorithms.  Matt Blaze is
not associated with the project, and if any other crypto notables wish
a similar public statement made about them, they have only to email
and request it.
 
Sponsorships for the project are being solicited on the basis of the
statement of work in the FAQ, and work product to date.  They are not
being solicited based on any representation that various individuals
with recognizable names are associated with the project.  Anonymous
trolls making such allegations, followed by irate rebuttals by shills,
and scientists who should know better, are clearly an attempt at
disruption.  Continued such antics will be met with an appropriate
legal response.

-- 
Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project
http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html