The Substantially Similar Weblog

A few weeks ago, security guru Bruce Schneier wrote a blistering critique of the “Tree” security system· in the “doghouse” section of his newsletter, Crypto-Gram· (at the moment, the website for the product reports “the website you have requested has exceeded its daily bandwidth quota of 56MB and has been temporarily de-activated”). Ken Lavender, apparently an executive of the company, wrote the following retort, which I reproduce in full to insure with the hope that it will be widely disseminated:

 From: "Ken Lavender"  Subject: ICS Atlanta I am APPAULED at your "comments" that you had made on your website: ·> You have statements are nothing but slander & defamation. They shall be dealt with accordingly. Lie #1: "How do they demonstrate Tree's security? 'Over 100 professionals in mathematics & in computer science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology & at Georgia Tech, had sample encoded messages submitted to them. Not a single person could break this code!'" That is not the ONLY way we prove it. We have examples & offer to allow people to submit their OWN messages to have encoded to SEE how good the code is. So there are THREE methods, NOT just ONE as you IMPLY. Lie #2: "These guys sent unsolicited e-mails..." HOW do you KNOW that this was the case? Have any PROOF of such? NO! Lie #3: "And if all that isn't enough to make you run screaming from these guys, their website proudly proclaims: 'Tree Encoded Files Can Be "Zipped."'" Because they can be "zipped" does NOT mean that it is "bad encoding." The "code talkers" of ww2 used LANGUAGE to "code" the messages, and THOSE COULD BE "ZIPPED"!!! And that code was NEVER BROKEN!!! Lie #4: "That's right; their encryption is so lousy that the ciphertext doesn't even look random." AGAIN, HOW would you KNOW??? Did you break it? NO! And what is "random"??? random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method "So lousy"? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW??? You would have to KNOW how we encode BEFORE you can make such a statement, & YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW!!! If it is SO LOUSY, how come NOBODY HAS BROKEN IT YET??? And we have people ALL THE TIME trying to, with ZERO SUCCESS. I do not like you slandering something that you do not understand. ATALL!!! The ONLY question you asked was "how long is the key" AND THAT WAS IT! HOW long was the key that the 'code talkers' used? ZERO!!! JUST AS OUR IS. The encoding routine was created, tested, & verified on PAPER & PENCIL WITHOUT COMPUTERS! A child could encode data using our routine. The computer is merely used to "speed-up" the process, NOT TO CREATE IT. Our routine is based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH. So all of you "comments" are just false, misleading & just plain ole lies! SHOW & PROVE that it is NOT random. What is the PATTERN THEN??? I am DEMANDING A FULL RETRACTION OF YOUR COMMENTS & A FULL, COMPLETE APOLOGY TO THESE AND ALL STATEMENTS. I am a person who tries to work with people as a man w/o having to "drag" others into the mess. Others? THE COURTS. You have violated Calf law by your statements. [Text of California Civil Code Section 46 deleted.] Your LIES have damaged my respect in my job & has damaged any sales of this routine. You have ZERO proof of your "comments," ANY OF THEM!!! I beseech of you, do the RIGHT THING and comply. I DO NOT wish to escalate this matter any higher. And remember this, Tree is based on LANGUAGE, NOT MATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Phone number deleted out of mercy.] 

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ