Re: Joe Asswood sends his Sock Puppets out to defend him ---, cryptologist? No, just blowhard!

clem wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:30:19 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
> <> wrote:
>
> > clem wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:54:30 -0400, "John E. Hadstate"
> > > <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > " "- Prof. Jonez©"" <> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > You've started drinking quite early this morning... or
> > > > > are you still hung over from last night?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only coffee and orange juice so far, and nothing more
> > > > intoxicating than a pipe full of Captain Black last night.
> > > > So how's your weed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > This guy is obviously a troll, John.
> >
> > Translation: You can't refute the facts.
>
> Of course I can. The folks at CryptoSMS are frauds and you are a
> troll. This much is clear.

Yet, you offer no evidence or facts whatsoever.
Naked declarations may work at home with your browbeaten
wife, but in the real world they don't amount to jack shit.

>
> > >
> > > Everyone of any consequence knows Ashwood is a good egg,
> >
> > Then let the blowhard defend his own hipocrisy and errors
> > posted to this thread.
> >
> > > and no one
> > > will fault you for just letting this idiot Jonez spin around a
> > > spew
> > > vile until he caves in under the weight of his own fetid
> > > existence.
> >
> > John send you to extract him from the pile of shit that he laid?
>
> No. John doesn't need anyone to protect him and either does Joseph.

Yet you feel compelled to come to their rescue like a good little sock.
Meow meow ...

>
> >
> > >
> > > You and Joe are known quanitities around here and this Jonez
> > > character isn't worth wasting your time on.
> >
> > Tranlation: You can't refute the facts posted to this thread, can
> > you?
>
> Of course I can. The folks at CryptoSMS are frauds and you are a
> troll. This much is clear.

Yet, you offer no evidence or facts whatsoever.
Naked declarations may work at home with your browbeaten
wife, but in the real world they don't amount to jack shit.

> > >
> > > Of course, no one, least of all me, would suggest you don't have
> > > the
> > > right to tell an idiot that he is, in fact, being idiotic.
> >
> > Ad Hominum -- the sign of a true loser
> >
> > Careful, don't actually address the fact pattern of the subject of
> > the thread.
>
> Let's go beck to what started this if you want to be so correct:
>
> The CryptoSMS spammer thread (let me remind you):
>
> Loser spammer: "hey everyone I've heard (sic) that CryptoSMS is a
> kewl crypto product"
>
> Oher loser shill: "That's right. Even God can't crack their
> bazillion bit technology".

Why do you lie? Is it pathological or do you get paid?

>
> That is precisely when Joe, John and others in sci.crypt ripped you
> guys a new one (notice how I said you guys).

Except Joe the Blowhard couldn't tell the difference between
DES and iDEA, and contradicted his own prior postings spouting
the virtues of triple-layered encryption:

> From: "Joseph Ashwood" <ashwood@msn.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.crypt
> Subject: Re: Cascading different algorithms?
>
> Message-ID: <wXUbe.2094$zu.569@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.118.12.54
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:08:12 GMT
>
> Actually 3DES was used because it was the most analyzed around, this came
> as a result of DES. If the key size were the only consideration we would have
> all switch to IDEA or Blowfish or any of the dozens of other good
> solutions.
> The tripling of the rounds that is the result of the process actually
> serves a very solid purpose, and the change of keys deals with the rest,
> leaving
> only those attacks that work on the structure of the new cipher (e.g. the
> attacks on 3DES work this way). 3DES was created because someone said why
> not, 3DES remained because it resisted everything anyone threw at it for
> over 2 decades, this was in large part because of the fundamental
> structure of the triple encipherment. The only situation where multiple
> encipherment
> with the same cipher would not increase security is in the unlikely case
> that it forms a group, IIRC there is actually a proof that Rijndael does
> not (Rijndael was named AES but much of the original theory is easier to find
> regarding Rijndael). The 7 layer encipherment is the next reasonable step
> in the process.
> Joe

So which is it jackass? You can't have it both ways, unless you want
to confess you're nothing but a pathetic liar.

> The fact is this: CryptoSMS sucks big time and you can't deal with
> it. Everything else is just window dressing to that scenario.

Sez the sockpuppet asshat who can't even crack such a "weak and
sucky" encryption scheme, even when extra clues are given.

>
> So go ahead and do your troll thing. Be the village idiot.
>
> But we're laughting at you and we know who you are.
>
> Your product CryptoSMS has got the big loser sign on it in sci.crypt
>
> Those are the facts in this case and all your troll shit can't change
> it.

So put up or shut up --

      Newsgroups: misc.legal, sci.crypt, talk.politics.crypto, us.legal
      From: poster <pos...@use.net>
      Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:02:49 +1000
      Local: Tues,Jun 14 2005 1:02 am
      Subject: Re: crypto for Joseph Ashwood?

      Since I'm a CryptoSMS user, I am very curious just how clever
      Mr Ashwood is. Attached below are three CryptoSMS messages, all
      of which are encrypted with the same passphrase and all of which
      contain the same clear text. Mr Ashwood, would you please crack
      these and post the contents for all to see? It should be easy
      since you have 3 individual messages which are all internally
      identical. Good luck.

      ??31m3dH-zpJ2ta8zI07sFm5o-UX5w­rMwKtUOGffGoqz98P7RrUE0bNu4Yu0­Sue-ZdUaNXK000??

      ??31SdibaVtKZ=50U74hLnQYg558NM­=dopXVivzD5LOu1XQFqYIC1IK-6O1G­7LQaRBbL41G000??

      ??31jKvmpN7DsULlMlD9ojQbe17m3R­8eA8FL51HM1vln=zB3GkwtRBjcp3wS­-2wRmcatMXK000??
Received on Thu Sep 29 21:44:50 2005