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

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Peter Pentchev wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:07:33AM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Jeff King wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:30:03AM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > OK, I tried to follow your math. But it really doesn't make any sense
> > > > > to me.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I hope you figure it out before they give you a PH.D. in... what?  
> > > > computer science?
> > > 
> > > Why are you even mentioning this except to be inflammatory? 
> > 
> > Ok. That wasn't fair.  I'm just getting tired of some of the BS going
> > around.  But you are playing into it. "One guy wrote the code, One wrote
> > the doc, had nothing to do with the code but post, one had nothing
> > whatsoever to do with it, and a sockpuppet distributes it".  That
> > clearly wasn't what happened.
>   ^^^^^^^
> 
> You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

Well, if you take what they say:

  * Jeff King invented and wrote the patch (to "protect" against
    birthday attacks)  all by himself. King didn't collaborate with
    anyone else.  According to King, Kevin Day invented this 
    independently.
  * Kevin Day just wrote a paper about closing the "birthday attack 
    window"  with some other folks at GaTech, and posted King's patch
    online--somehow independently without collaborating with King. And
    did /nothing/ else.  §omehow, Day did all this without collaborating
    with anyone else, certainly not Kaminsky.
  * Dan Kaminsky had nothing whatsoever to do with the patch or its 
    design and invention. Except that he invented the spoofing of
    NXdomain and bad glue.  Kaminsky invented the idea of the birthday
    attack protection, but King didn't get it from Kaminsky. Day says he
    didn't collaborate with Kaminsky.
  * No one has any idea why "Mark Johnson" is anonymously distributing 
    the patched server.

They expect us to believe that all three divided up the main parts of
the work:  Birthday Protection (each independently), Code (King), Paper
(Day), evangelism (Kaminsky), and didn't collaborate.

By contrast, the email records show they collaborated.  We don't have to
imply anything about what happened at the DNS summit.  We don't have to
find a line of code written by Kaminsky. We have email of them working
together, testing the patch, collaboring on the scheme to persuade
people there is a "discovery" and a way to prevent birthday attacks.

The math shows that you can't protect against birthday attacks by their
scheme: There is no way to close the window on birthday attacks by
re-arranging port management.  The record shows all three collaborated
to indroduce a gratuitous (worse) change into DJBDNS;  No discovery,
just a scam.

And spoofing NXDomain and bad glue was already known.  (a scam to sell 
OpenDNS)   There is no discovery. Just a scam.

The email record shows that Kaminsky, Day, and King collaborated on the
scam in involving DJBDNS, and continued to do so even after the OpenDNS
scam was exposed.

The objective in trying to pretend each did his part independently is
that then they can pretend they didn't know of the scam, which
ostensibly involves all of the parts in sum (code + distribution +
evangelism).  The record shows otherwise.


		--Dean



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