Message-ID: <optid.06576318be.A876923A2C9CD44BA76505F58ECF089D03FEE6B5@gandalf.optimum.bm>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:56:40 +0000
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <Thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "craig.wright@...ormation-Defense.com"
	<craig.wright@...ormation-Defense.com>, "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu"
	<Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
Cc: 'full-disclosure' <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
	"pen-test@...urityfocus.com" <pen-test@...urityfocus.com>,
	"security-basics@...urityfocus.com" <security-basics@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: SMS Banking

*ME* stop trying to weasel?  Wow.  At least you'll have a shot at comedy when this is over.

Answer my questions, "Dr."  as posted.  Include the system YOU said YOU would set up.  Include that if it gets breached ANY WAY I WANT within 6 months that you will pay me $100,000.

Is that simple enough for you?  Is there any part of that that one can deem as "weaseling?"   Product the freaking contract already and stop wasting our time.

t

From: Craig S. Wright [mailto:craig.wright@...ormation-Defense.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:51 AM
To: Thor (Hammer of God); Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: pen-test@...urityfocus.com; 'full-disclosure'; security-basics@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] SMS Banking

Tim,
You stated "You are officially "on." " to my challenge.

I am arranging a contract. An attorney has been arranged for both the contract and the escrow.  This will take a number of days.

The amount has upped and there are a couple other aspects, but the initial framework holds. Stop trying to weasel.

Regards,
...
Dr. Craig S Wright<http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/> GSE-Malware, GSE-Compliance, LLM, & ...
Information Defense<http://www.information-defense.com/> Pty Ltd


From: Thor (Hammer of God) [mailto:Thor@...merofgod.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2010 3:59 PM
To: craig.wright@...ormation-Defense.com; Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: pen-test@...urityfocus.com; 'full-disclosure'; security-basics@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] SMS Banking

Now you're talking.  But first let's work up an actual contract.  Neither of your components define anything.  When you say that you are going to predict "risk" with your  magic formula, do you mean if the software has vulnerabilities?   That it can be hacked, or will be hacked?

Be sure to define this properly and definitively - if you end up saying that a system has a 1% change of being hacked, and I (or my auditors) hack it, would you claim you were "right"?  I question if you can even define the parameters of this bet, much less apply your formulas, but we'll see.

I also want to know what "scale" you plan to use.  So far, even though I've asked, you've not provided what the "answer" to your formula is, or how it will be applied.   I'm assuming, unless you are going to change your tune which I wouldn't doubt, that you won't look at the software code or threat models, but rather apply your formulas.  I further assume that the "loser" will be financially responsible for the "audits" done my way.

I'm more than happy to take your money, and I look forward to doing so.    Since one of your masters degrees is in law, I'm assuming you can clearly define the terms of the contract.    I will, of course, insist upon a contract, and I hope you won't mind that I have my own attorney look it over.    I'm not immediately trusting of the competence of one with a doctorate degree and multiple masters degrees who can't spell "technology" or "experience" correctly on his on-line CV.

You are officially "on."  And I'm looking forward to it.

t



From: Craig S. Wright [mailto:craig.wright@...ormation-Defense.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:41 PM
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu; Thor (Hammer of God)
Cc: pen-test@...urityfocus.com; 'full-disclosure'; security-basics@...urityfocus.com
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] SMS Banking


I have a simple answer to this. Forget the debate, rhetoric is not a scientific method of determining truth.

"Thor" wants a challenge, let's have one - a real one and not one based on verbalisations, abuse and unfounded assertions.

I suggest two components;

1       A selection of software products are tested using both processes, that is I use a model for the risk of these products, and "Thor" can make up whatever guesses he wishes. We model (or "Thor" guesses, pulls from a hat...) the vulnerabilities over a time period. The number of bugs in software as well as the risk are to be presented as a monthly estimate.

2       We model a few systems (say 50). We can use Honeypots (real systems set to log all activity without interference) run by an independent party to each of us. I use probabilistic models to calculate the risk. "Thor" does whatever he wants.

Each of the predictions is published by all parties. The one who is most accurate wins. Fairly simple?

I will even give a handicap to "Thor", I will offer to predict within a 95% confidence interval and that for me to win, at least 90 of the 100 software products and 45 of the 50 systems have to lie within my predicted range that I calculate and release. "Thor" has to simply guess better than I do no matter how far out he is.

I will put up $10,000 Au for my side. Let's see if "Thor" has something real to offer.

Regards,

...

Dr. Craig S Wright<http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com/> GSE-Malware, GSE-Compliance, LLM, & ...

Information Defense<http://www.information-defense.com/> Pty Ltd



Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists