From: "M Peterson" <apalamen@sbcglobal.net>
To: "'Carolyn Meinel'" <cmeinel@cmeinel.com>
Subject: Ok
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:42:58 -0600
Dear Carolyn,
You entire argument will be the defense that you can print falsehoods
about me without verification. I have told you that I am who
I am – but in a public forum you have chosen to produce
falsehoods about me until you are proven otherwise.
This is not protected under US Constitutional First Ammendment
articles.
Carolyn replies: Peterson still doesn't
understand. He says he was breaking into NIPRnet from 1980 through
1982. NIPRnet was first created in 1995. Then he says he misspoke,
it was MILnet he was breaking into, and that he mispoke about
the dates, it was 1983. MILnet, according to reliable historical
documents, was first created in 1984.
Even if I let him slide past me by
believing he simply misspoke those two times, someone appears
to be lying -- either Peterson or all those historical documents.
I prefer to believe the historical documents. I have a First
Amendment right to refuse to let Peterson extort me into saying
he's telling the truth when there is so much evidence that he
is lying. Oh, and extortion is not protected under the First
Amendment. But I'll just blow off his extortion attempts unless
he drags me into court.
I have no recourse at this time but to simply sue you for libel
per se - against my hopes of getting you to correct your false
allegations and uninformed statements. I will provide the documentation
in court – you will be found to represent yourself with
what? Lies until proven otherwise? You should know better. Burden
of proof is on me, which I do have. One document which will be
at the center of the case. Damage has already been done. As confirmed
in my letter of concern, letter of intent, letter of jurisdiction
to you.
Just like Kevin
Mitnick, Peterson is trying
to frighten me by saying he has proof. PROOF! But he'll keep
it secret until he drags me into court. And the judge, Peterson
imagines, will say, "My, my, what a cruel woman, she actually
believed all these historical documents instead of your secret
document you just sprung on us. Why, I'll make her give you the
money you demand!"
Also, note that Peterson says he
will sue me "per se." That is a legal term for saying
that he will represent himself instead of getting a lawyer. That
is probably because no lawyer will take a case that appears to
be an attempt at extortion, because that puts the lawyer in danger
of losing his license to practice law -- or worse.
Your links to your “man-in-the-middle” do not refer
to this exact vulnerability I have uncovered. I am sorry to say
that I think you should learn basic Internet 101. Do you actually
understand the Internet? I was under the impression that you
didn’t know a lot of what you were writing about when I
first contacted your firm during the very first emails.
Since Peterson is keeping his "exact
vulnerability" secret, who can say whether it even exists?
Show us the proof of concept code! Or is he going to wait until
he's before a judge to spring it. "Mr. Judge, this mean
old lady refused to believe in my secret discovery of a computer
vulnerability. Make her give me a bunch of money for being so
mean." Peterson can end this whole charade by simply submitting
his vulnerability to CERT or Bugtraq for analysis. But, noooo,
he keeps on demanding that I endorse it.
I have asked repeatedly for you to correct the NIPRNET misunderstanding
– it was a general term I used to represent MILNET/ARPANET
– which to my understanding is what they eventually came
to be called. I was on MILNET in 1982-1983 – they were dial-up
numbers. Your allegation is that MILNET never existed in 1982.
A falsehood and technical blunder on your end. It did exist,
you think they all of a sudden just split MILNET and ARPANET
in 1983 without having MILNET in 1982? That is a sign of ignorance
of this area.
Woo hoo! I'll bet you folks reading
this can use Google to pull up all sorts of documents on the
histories of ARPAnet, MILnet and NIPRnet.
I have three firms that have verified the Backdoor. Your flagrant
disregard for the truth regarding the backdoor in search of some
basic javascript.php.html code to create a program to exploit
the vulnerability is a non-issue, and shows marked ignorance
of the basic network technology of the Internet. I came to your
consulting firm regarding the Banking Vulnerability - nothing
else nothing more.
All the people Peterson told me to
contact for confirmation of his Amazing Discovery denied having
confirmed it.
I know I spent a week [he actually harassed
me for four weeks, demanding that I endorse his secret discovery,
before I posted his emails here] trying to educate
you on these matters, but none of the URL’s you have provided
discuss this exact webservices vulnerability that I sent your
firm or gave to the FBI. This is another example of marked lack
of intelligent expertise in this area.
The firms that have verified the Backdoor Vulnerability:
Yours - or don’t you remember stating this?
Whitehatsec (Carolyn's note: They denied
confirming it.)
NSRG-Security (Carolyn's note: They
denied confirming it.)
(Where's firm number three?)
Sincerely,
Mark Peterson
If you are tired of this Peterson
thing, click here for other examples of why, when I open my email,
I sometimes moan, "It sucks to be me."
