Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:02:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Wednesday 15 November 2006 18:46 \__
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:39:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >>
> >>> By the way, the Chinese, German and French government can confirm that
> >>> there are deliberate back doors (with undocumented protocols for access,
> >>> surely).
> >>
> >> Do you have any links ..
> >
> >
> > http://www.heise.de/ct/english/98/08/042/
> >
> > http://digg.com/linux_unix/Windows_Might_Become_a_US_Government_Thingy#c2683628
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~budallen/backdoor.html
> >
> > http://www.darknet.org.uk/2006/02/uk-wants-backdoor-in-next-version-of-microsoft-windows/
>
> None of these things support your bald faced statement that "the Chinese,
> German and French governments can confirm that there are deliberate back
> doors" in Vista.
>
> Don't wave your hands around. Provide links that the Chinese, German, and
> French governments confirm this.
>
> The first link is talking about standard remote access services, services
> that exist in Linux as well.
>
> The second link talks about DHS encouraging people to apply a critical
> patch.
>
> The third link talks about the, by now, multiply debunked *THOERY* of an
> NSA backdoor. This was debunked by the likes of Bruce Schnier.
What I find especially interesting here is that the whole "Secret NSA
backdoor" myth has been debunked so many times and so long ago and by
actual *experts* like Bruce Schnier. It's now more difficult to find
the old out-of-date links that still bring up this imaginative theory
than it is to find the legitimate links that completely debunk it.
Seems that Roy S. needed to wade through multiple accurate articles and
links before he finally found a bogus one that suited his FUD agenda.
> The fourth link is about something a government wants, not what is.
>
> Come on, Roy. Step up to the plate. Provide your evidence.
I think that this feable attempt was his best shot.
|
|
