<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: Guus Sliepen <guus,AT,sliepen,DOT,eu,DOT,org>
Subject: Re: Peter Gutmann + Slashdot
From: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:10:54 -0300
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <20030924172312.GD715@sliepen.eu.org>
References: <200309231349.52932.dwilson@ibl.bm> <20030924172312.GD715@sliepen.eu.org>

Good idea.

I think that we should emphasize that the design goals of our respective 
projects seem to converge on the requirement of running multiple protocols 
properly without timing problems. This seems to be the prime cause of what 
Peter Gutmann deems "bad practice"


On Wednesday 24 September 2003 02:23 pm, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 01:49:52PM -0300, Damion Wilson wrote:
> > Is this thing worth some kind of official response ? I feel that Open
> > Source VPN's as a whole are being attacked. I appreciate constructive
> > criticism but the language of Peter Gutmann's "appraisal" is just too
> > condescending to regard as beneficial.
> I (one of tinc's developers) would also like to take part in an
> official response. I don't think it was Peter Gutmann's intention to let
> this go beyond the cryptography mailing list where he posted this, but
> since it hit Slashdot many people will find his report. He is well known
> in the security world, so his words carry much weight. It would be
> better if we wrote a strong reply to his one-sided reaction, so people
> can see both sides of the issues and draw there own conclusions with
> less bias.
> I'm also Cc'ing this to the VTun mailing list, I think they would be
> interested as well.

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]