Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : JAWS Technologies - NASDAQ (NM):JAWZ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: justaninvestor who wrote (1004)	10/7/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: caly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3086

Barrie, You make some good points, but think of it this way... I'm the head of security at some company, and I need to purchase File Encryption software to protect sensitive data on corporate PCs. There are dozens of vendors to look at including well-known ones like Security Dynamics, Vasco Data Security and Axent Technologies, and some smaller relatively obscure companies like AETI and JAWZ. With the exception of JAWZ, these companies all use well-known encryption algorithms with sufficient key lengths to make me comfortable. Why would I, with my job on the line, be willing to risk my neck on JAWZ? I can tell my boss, well the company says it's great...and they had this contest...and this big engineering/construction company in Canada says it's ok, but no, the algorithm is not recognized by any standards organization. And no, no well-known and well-respected cryptographers have reviewed it. And oh by the way, they're an OTC company whose shares sell for .30. Can I please buy $25,000 worth of their encryption product? This is the battle they're facing...

To: justaninvestor who wrote (1004)	10/7/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: Enam Luf	Respond to of 3086

Bbruin, it has nothing to do with whether or not i like the person. I simply want to able to check on whoever tests the product to find out what their credentials and background are...and what their rep in the security industry is... I want to know that someone with more skills than a two-bit hack (pun intended) took a really hard look at this... I really don't care who tests it... but (skeptic that I am) ... I need to check them out for myself.. There must be 100 + well-respected cryptographers out there (most of whom i have never heard of)... any will do... Bruce Schneier just happens to be one of the best known ... and he publishes a lot of work on algorithms that are not his own.... Testing an algorithm is a matter of mathematics, science, not opinion... a weakness is a weakness... it is provable... and testable... and i would think that any expert would be an idiot to risk their reputation and their business by making false negative claims... in such academic circles, these things are just not done... Every encryption scheme has its weaknesses.... whether it be brute force guessing or a multitude of common and sophisticated cryptoanalytic attacks... (save, one time pad, theoretically) some are much more susceptible to cracks than others.. some are very strong... and some are crap... and I've spent too much time checkin out this industry to believe that every tiny company out there (there are ten's, maybe more) claiming to have the "world's strongest encryption software" ... and offering million dollar prizes to anyone who can beat their contest... is on the level... I know you've spent a lot of time and effort on this.. and that is commendable... I'm sorry that our opinions differ..... but I think am being reasonable.... here... I can go to tons of websites and find out the strengths and weaknesses of almost every single algorithm out there... even the newest ones... but for the life of me I can't find a single independent reference to L5 outside of Jaws' literature... and that bugs me.... And to be perfectly honest... i wouldn't really care if they weren't making themselves out to be the end all be all of data security.... My recommendation would to do a little due diligence outside of the company... make some phone calls... many of these experts are accessible either through email or otherwise... and ask .... it can't hurt to ask.. and see if they have heard of JAWZ and what their opinion is..... If I'm wrong .. so be it.. it's a definitely possibility.. i don't deny that..... I am simply stating my opinions... As for the stock.. well... that's anyone's guess... the entire market is pretty damn pitiful these days... Enam

To: justaninvestor who wrote (1004)	10/7/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Enam Luf	Respond to of 3086

Barrie, Perhaps I wasn't clear in my prior post about cracking DES and bit length... The point I was trying to make is that even 128 bit encryption can be considered statistically unbreakable... HOWEVER, most algorithms out there... especially those not based on widely accepted and tested techniques fall victim far quicker to cryptoanalytic attacks, not brute force attacks.. There is a serious difference between the two methods... For 4096 bit encryption, it would be ridiculous to even try to calculate how long it would take if you just randomly guessed at the answer (brute force)... given of course that the key source was sufficiently random.... (netscape encyption was hacked a few years back cause the key generation had detectible patterns which made the key search a far more efficient endeavor).. In many cases, the design of the algorithm, and the scrambling processes that are employed mean more then the number of bits in the key... If the algorithm, or more to the point, the problem of backing into the key, can be collapsed to a trivial mathematical problem, then even a million bit key wouldn't helpya ... same thing if there is a flaw in the program design that allows a would-be cracker to gain vital info that would aid in cracking the key....Determining the strength of cryptographic algorithms is serious business and is a well-defined science.... Most people don't understand how this stuff works, and I am first now only beginning to scratch the surface myself... But one thing that has been well publicized is key length... and how 56 isn't safe and how the gov't won't allow export of 128 etc etc etc.... So it looks to me as if Jaws is trying to capitalize on the fact that the consumer, and the public is not knowledgeable on the advanced mathematics of encryption by touting extra large keys as adding security, when, in fact, that may or may not be the case... Sure, their claims could be entirely accurate.. but I have know way of knowing that until I hear differently from some kinda of verifiable industry source.... For another example of a company that is, IMO, doing a similar type of marketing as jaws, go check out Meganet at meganet.com read through their materials and see if it sounds familiar... Now meganet is listed on Peter Gutmann's encryption links page under the "snake oil" section... but how the HELL would I have been able to determine that for myself? When I first looked at their product it looked great, and the description was detailed enough to be way above my head.... so I figured it was legit.... and who knows.. maybe it is... but i don't trust my opinions on that matter as I am not an expert... which is why I rely on the expertise of others... Enam