From: Craig Wright [mailto:cwright@bdosyd.com.au]
Sent: 23 February 2006 21:10
To: dave kleiman; Darren W Miller
Cc: Al Sutton; defendingthenet
Subject: RE: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk



Hello,

Dave stated; "Craig.. And be gentle Craig will pick apart opinions and bring back \
factual information without batting an eye."

True and I am always open to being proved wrong. The thing is that I have to be \
PROVED Wrong. Opinion and anecdotal evidence is not proof. Validated points and \
correctly collected statistical data are.

As much as many people find this difficult to believe (even my wife) I enjoy being \
proved wrong. It is both a learning opportunity for my self and a demonstration that \
others are engaging in serious peer review processes outside of academe.

In the past 20 years I have performed close to 5,000 engagements. At the moment I am \
conducting one of the largest vulnerability and risk assessments ever conducted in \
Australia in association with the Attorney Generals CNVA programme.

The first issue to address is yes you found a vulnerability and it was exploitable. \
What is the risk? The impact threat vectors and other analysis factors need to be \
considered. Vulnerabilities do not matter by themselves. They create a risk \
potential. When you understand this you will both serve your clients more effectively \
and also add value in a manner they will understand. You need to sell to management. \
They understand finance and risk. Vulnerabilities are FUD. They do not help.

As for engineering something not to fail. This is where I have an issue with people \
who think they are engineers. Engineering is the process of building something to a \
set specification. An example is giving a 95% Confidence Internal of a 5 year \
expected life. It involves the analysis and design of hazard functions and survival \
processes.

Regards,
Craig https://marc.info/?l=security-basics&m=114080882901616&w=2

PS this is about as nice as I get unless people actually seek to open their minds and \
learn.

"Darren, I know you are used to posting articles at CastleCops were the home user is the basic audience and nobody is retorting, but when you step into this arena you will see some serious professionals in varying fields and they will not let misinformation slide. You of course do not have to respond to the responses, but expect even heavier discussion when you post and disappear.

By the way if you were to post this at a higher level forum such as pen-test, they would eat your below write-up for breakfast. But since you left it off post, I did the same....however I know Craig loves pen-testing so he may not".

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave@davekleiman.com]
Sent: 23 February 2006 4:25
To: 'Darren W Miller'
Cc: Craig Wright; 'Al Sutton';'defendingthenet'
Subject: Why Easy To Use Software Is Putting You At Risk

https://marc.info/?l=security-basics&m=114080882901616&w=2

Respectfully,
________________________________
Dave Kleiman, CAS,CCE,CIFI,CISM,CISSP,ISSAP,ISSMP,MCSE

https://marc.info/?l=security-basics&m=114080882901616&w=2

You can download a DOS-based utility HDDerase that securely erases all data on ATA \
hard disk drives via the internal secure erase command. \
http://cmrr.ucsd.edu/people/Hughes/SecureErase.shtml


And yes, I am the same Dave Kleiman from the paper.
https://marc.info/?l=cryptography&m=123254804719371&w=2

Minute 29:44
- What about Dave Kleiman?

4. Copyright on the Bitcoin White Paper - Satoshi Nakamoto - Dr. Craig S. Wright & Ryan X. Charles
26 ene 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsQJVqvGBLY

Haciendo una limpieza en mi drive, me encuentro esto y me pregunto, Que habré visto yo en este video de Dave Kleiman, que me hice una copia, junto con mis videos personales, con fecha tres días después de su Fallecimiento el 26 de abril de 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkN4Qr4uz4w&t=6s

Telegram´s Channels

@SatoshisQuotes
@BitCoin2008_2010
@BitCoinWP
@BitCoinSourceForge
@BitcoinTalkForum
@Hal_Finney
@RayDillinger
@IanGrigg
@JosephVaughnPerling
@GavinAndresen1
@MikeHearn

@StefanMatthews
@CalvinAyre
@Jimmy_Nguyen
@SteveShadders
@GeorgeGilder

@DavidRees
@DaveKleiman
@KleimanVsCSW
@UyenTNguyen

Craig Wright
@Craig_Wright. 40 Members
@CSW_Academic 95 Members
@CSW_Articles 104 Members
@CSW_Books
@CSW_Business
@CSW_Cybersecurity
@CSW_Economics
@CSW_Ideology
@CSW_interviews
@CSW_interviewsVideos
@CSW_Legal
@CSW_Patent
@CSW_Religion
@CSW_Satoshi 199 Members
@CSW_Slack. 480 Members
@CSW_VideoTalks
@CSW_Videos
@CSW_Asperger
@CSW_Gallery
@theArtofBitcoin 64 Members
@TheSatoshiAffaire 50 Mem.
@DonLynam

CSW personal Batlles
@BitCoinWP
@Double_Spend
@BitCoinDatabaseOwnership
@BitCoin_Domain

@RamonQuesadaNews -140

If anyone can falsify my claims, I go to prison. I have sworn in testimony that I am Satoshi Nakamoto, and I created bitcoin. To journalists, there is no way to prove. Anything can be taken and twisted in social media. You can't do that in court if you twist the narrative and you lie you face the consequences.

Others who claim to be Satoshi so that they can gain fame have to prove their point. Each point of evidence needs to be falsifiable. If it can be falsified, they face prison time. There is nothing from any of these people that I cannot falsify. I can demonstrate categorically in court with evidence that all of these people have created a false narrative to either defraud people or engage in other scams.

Those like Gizmodo and Wired were not interested in the real story. It's the same as that author who wanted to paint me in the same light Julian Assage. But of course, is the false narrative we get to take part. The way that that story was written was to sell a populist idea of what bitcoin and Satoshi mean, and it is not what I intended. It is not why I invented bitcoin, and it is not the story that needs to be told.

What I expect to happen is that people like Roger and Vitelik will oppose me because they know their scams require that I do not get a voice. They will seek to censor me and will be seen to do such. Then, everything that there claiming will be shown to be false and malicious. Next, we would expect many of the other scammers who have to double down to attack, and they can claim that they worked with me and that they were part of this and this is why we need to keep some things close. If everything is out there, I cannot discredit others who seek to say that they were part of the Satoshi group.

That idiot in BCH, David and others he worked with planned Jihan and wanted me to be a part of a larger group early on which gives them power. People like Bear, Hal and Dave, helped me, but they did not create bitcoin. They didn't even really know what bitcoin was. Even Dave wrote not a single line of code. He gave me a few grammatical suggestions on the Whitepaper and his real role was keeping me psychologically sane as I dealt with these people. He was a sounding board and a friend.

What we are going to find is the narrative changes to say that these were part of my group. We already see this. If they know the full story, these people can twist and become seemingly part of it and lie, it becomes hard for us to weed them out.
But going forward, I have things they don't know. And they won't be able to give them before we get them in court and tear them apart. Once we have a few people torn apart, preferably people who are under oath and then demonstrated to have perjured themselves we can ensure that others know that if they do this if they seek to add themselves to my story, I always have something that will ruin them.

This is why we need court because otherwise other people are going to twist the story and continue their scams.

CSW
May 25, 2019

https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1558795610306000?thread_ts=1558795604.305900&cid=C5131HKFX

RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:43:08 +1100

Hi Dave,

It is true that there are cases/incidents that go to court (even virus infections). These are statistically the
anecdotal case is just the exception. In fact if 1% of all corporate (even excluding personal incidents) incidents
involving virus incidents alone where to go to court, the court system would fold.

Look at the volume of cases in any given country in total. No organisation would take a case to court for this for
costs of less than $50,000 loss - it can not be justified financially and the process will generally cost more than
this.

An extra 10,000 - 20,000 cases in Australia (lets take the NSWSC and other Supreme courts in the other states as these
are the required starting point to file claim at this level of loss etc etc) would result in the total collapse of the
legal system. Cases would not be heard. The backlog each year would exceed the number tried.
[http://www.austlii.edu.au is a good source for cases etc]

Based on the number of companies (not businesses, lets narrow this) in Australia, if every "REPORTED" virus incident
was to go to court this would involve at least 200,000 additional cases. (figures calculated from SANS, Symantec and
APRIA data). Even taking the incidents with a reported impact of greater than $1,000,000 based on loss estimates from
the companies we are looking at 30,000 to 40,000 (Mean 37,102 +/- 3,458 at alpha = 5%).

So taking this reduced figure at about 37,000 cases. This is far more than the courts can handle. If only 1 in 4
incidents (with costs over $1,000,000) go to court, this is still more than the system can handle.

Even looking to 100 cases worldwide going to court. This does not even come to 1% of incidents. Thus any incident which
does go to court is an anomaly.

I am certain that the US does not have that many idle judges that they could handle the extra load any better.

As to the CFO and embezzlement. It is rare to have large fraud tried. I teach corporate fraud detection as one of my
"hats" at a chartered firm (like a US CPA organisation).

I have to argue again, Forensic ALWAYS involves court. This is the nature of the word. As stated, involves court does
not mean that it will end up in court, but an affidavit (deposition eqv. US) is a court process even if the document
never sees the light of day.

Dave, you state "But, if we treat them all as if they might end up in litigation and do them in a forensically sound
manner, are our clients, organizations etc, not better served?" Well yes in the ideal world. The real world is not as
nice and not as clear cut.

It is clear that we lack knowledge of the others respective process requirements. Statute is one thing, rules of the
courts another.

Always remember that anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence.

Regards
Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: dave kleiman [mailto:dave () davekleiman com]
Sent: 10 February 2006 3:44
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Forensic/Cyber Crime Investigator

https://seclists.org/basics/2006/Feb/155?s=09

Dave Kleiman
Dave Kleiman (1967 – April 26, 2013) was a computer forensics expert, an author/coauthor of multiple books and a noted speaker at security related events. Dave was the key figure beside Craig that involved in the development of Bitcoin software. He was also a regular contributor to Cryptography and Security mailing lists where discussions included technical aspects of crypto-systems. He died in his home in April 2013 of complications suffering from a disease called MRSA.

https://gobsv.com/creator

Bitcoin como un Security
Por Craig Wright
25 julio 2021
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/bitcoin-como-sistema-de-seguridad-por-craig-wright/

Bitcoin as a Security
By Craig Wright
25 Jul 2021
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/

http://www.davekleiman.com/ interesting that Dave was working for NASA and the Securit-e-doc for Cyber Communication.

For those who like the ironic

Blacknet was first officially funded in 2001
I was disillusioned and left in 2010

2001 was Hal and Dave
2010 was after Hal and Dave

2010 was released in 1984
Core ARE 1984

Movie, 2001 a space odyssey

I started filing What is now metanet in 2001

Hal came in and unfucked a lot

Dave was better than me on some things, I have zero elegance in coding.

I was a functional coder.

Old school. Waterfall. Design first, argue design, then when it works in your head and on paper

Code each part

Or better, hand it off to others :)

CSW
Feb 22, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1550857088320800?thread_ts=1550857088.320800&cid=C5131HKFX

Let me make this entirely clear.

The court case is entirely about the origins of bitcoin and Satoshi.

For all the core people out there trying to play this down, there is nothing in this court case if I'm not Satoshi

The issue Is that Ira Kleiman seeks to promote Dave Kleiman as 50% of Satoshi. That is not correct

I don't deny that I had Dave in my life giving moral support and I don't deny that after 2011 we worked together on a few projects

I don't deny that I tried to invite him to work on bitcoin in 2008

I don't deny that I tried to give me contract for work in 2009 that he didn't accept and this led to a venture capital funded company called Greyfog In Australia that produced devices that used the Blockchain in 2009.

However, Dave never accepted the contract as he was too ill and I ended up taking other people who were directors and shareholders in that company including John Keeble and others in the venture ( vulture) capital field

CSW
Oct 30, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635621574238900?thread_ts=1635621574.238900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3254

No, Satoshi was Me.

Not a partnership. I own my role.

Ps... Dave never coded a line in his life, and documentation is not code.

CSW
Nov 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1636500014074100?thread_ts=1636500014.074100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3346