debunking snake oil

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:27:22PM -0400, Vin McLellan wrote:
> Thor Lancelot quoted that, and erupted with sanctimonious umbrage:
> 
> >>I think it's important that we know, when flaws in commercial
> >>cryptographic products are being discussed, what the interests of the
> >>parties to the discussion are.  So, I'll ask again, as I did last time:
> >>when you post here, both in this instance and in past instances, is it
> >>at your own behest, or that of RSA?
> 
> This is puerile.  One moderator is not enough? Now you want to set 
> yourself up as the Inquisition to vet for ideological purity?  No one 
> at RSA (or EMC, now RSA's parent firm) even knows about this 
> discussion, you ninny. Who would care?

[And a couple of hundred more lines -- but no actual direct answer to
 the question!]

I'll try again: yes, you've identified yourself as a consultant to RSA.
When you have posted here, both in this most recent thread and in other
threads, in particular the SecurID 800 thread, has it been at your own
behest, or that of RSA?

In other words, when you post here defending RSA products against
criticism, often with very emphatic language and in a way that belittles
the person making the criticism rather than engaging with the actual
technical critique, can we assume that it is not the case that RSA
asked you to do so?  Or is it, in fact, sometimes the case that RSA
asks you to post about their products here, and thus we should read your
words as being RSA's words?

I don't think it's an unreasonable question, and I ask it one more time
because, despite all the vitriol you directed at me (including the rather
odd choice to refer to me by my middle name rather than in a more normal
way) you did not, in fact, answer it.

Thor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com