[cryptography] basing conclusions on facts (was: Re: Dual EC backdoor was patented by Certicom?)
adamson.david.jr at gmail.com
Sun Jun 15 11:34:49 EDT 2014
On 6/15/14, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> On 15/06/14 14:13, ianG wrote:
>> What is also curious is that Dan
>> Brown is highly active in the IETF working groups for crypto,
> That is not correct as far as I can see. In my local archives,
> I see one email from him to the TLS list in 2011 and none in
> 2012. For the security area list (saag), I see a smattering
> of mails in 2011 and 2012 and none in 2013. For the IRTF's
> CFRG, I see a few in 2010, none in 2011 and some in 2012 and
> 2013. I do see increased participation over the last year on
> the the DUAL-EC topic.
> None of the above is anywhere near "highly active" which is
> therefore simply false.
Pfff - you are nitpicking.
1. The point that ianG made is clearly understood: He/she is
condemning Certicom's, Dan Brown's and Scott Vanstone's attempts to
patent the backdoor (to invent and then to patent it). ianG has also
tried to raise the dilemma among all of us that are following this
list what Dan Brown is doing in IETF?
2. The point that you are doing is also clearly understood: By
nitpicking you are trying to clear the amoral actions of Certicom, Dan
Brown and and Scott Vanstone.
More information about the cryptography