Re: Dishonest Forks? | Was - Re: [Namedroppers-honest] Brian Smith asks: Who is Dean Anderson?

I already went though that. According to you, you couldn't follow it
then, even though it was straight from the CRC handbook.  Your ignorance
doesn't discredit the arguments I made.  But you don't strike me as a
serious researcher or as a responsible system administrator, and I
rather think you are merely trying to waste my time. That is a troll.

But its quite simple:

1. There was no "discovery" of any vulnerability by either Day or 
   Kaminsky.  Multiple sources confirm that fact. I can explain the 
   math, but you still don't understand the math.

2. There is no credible fix for such non-discovery. The changes are
   gratuitous or worse than gratuitous. Math (that you don't understand)
   shows them to be worse.

3. The mere fact of that someone is anonymously purveying these changes 
   is discrediting by itself.

This is enough for any responsible system administrator to make a
decision.

		--Dean

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Faried Nawaz wrote:

> Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
>   Indeed.  That's why I tell people from time to time, that this
>   distibution isn't trustworthy, and why it isn't trustworthy.
> 
> So, just describing the changes to the code, why isn't zinq
> trustworthy?
> 
> 
> Faried.
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494