[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PGP 2.6 and the future
"Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>Allan Bailey says:
>> I'm willing to wager that 2.6 (and maybe 2.5) MIT'd PGP versions
>> are hacked by the NSA to put in a backdoor.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^ (emphasis added.)
>> I'll bet you a C-note, Perry.
>Done for $100.
>> Now how do you propose to prove or disprove this?
>The commonly selected way to settle such things is to select a neutral
>referee to adjudicate based on available evidence. The source code is
>public, so it should it should be trivial to read it and make a
>decision as to whether anything untoward has been done. I'll accept
>any reasonably expert referee -- my selection of choice would be Hal
>Finney since he is a well known cypherpunk, is strongly familiar with
>the code and would recognise any tampering.
Well, Hal wanted to bet me too, but you were first. If he's still
willing, I'll agree to him also.
>Tampering may be defined
>given what you are claiming as the presense of what a reasonable
>cryptographer would refer to as a "back door".
>Once we've settled on a judge and they've
>accepted the charge (we may need to pay the person for their time), we
>present our evidence to the person and allow them to make a decision.
>I'll happily bet any larger sum, too, if you like.
I'm a University programmer/sysadmin. I.e., poor, but with a good
InterNet connection. :)
>I'd also request
>that a neutral third party hold the stakes. At your choice the party
>can be the judge or another individual mutually acceptable.
Sounds fine with me. If Hal, or another agreed upon judge is willing,
I'll send my cheque in.
Allan Bailey, [email protected] | "Freedom is not free."
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations | [email protected]
Esperanto: MondLingvo, lingvo internacia.