Ou, not again!

Peter Gutmann of A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection fame emailed the Macalope (during the heat of Macworld Expo, so apologies for the delay) to respond to a piece the brown and furry one wrote a while back confirming the only piece of Gutmann's story he was qualified to make a judgement on:

That, on any given day, George Ou is not exactly traversing through a fully linked list.

Gutmann wanted to point out that he had, in fact, responded to Ou some time ago here.

Again, the Macalope will point out that he's not qualified to judge who's got the technical high ground here, but it does make for interesting reading.

Don't miss the excerpts from Ou's emails at the bottom.

UPDATE: In comments, George Ou takes exception to what he believes are Gutmann's insinuations that he sent him obscenity-laden emails. It's unclear if he's denying he sent the emails at all, he just seems to be saying he didn't send them to Gutmann and he thinks Gutmann is misrepresenting his loutish behavior with others as loutish behavior with him. Duly noted, George!

[george_ou]

You should do some research before you spread this stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann_(computer_scientist)#Criticism_of_Peter_Gutmann.27s_analysis_of_Vista_DRM

"Ed Bott challenged some of Peter Gutmann's other claims.[6] However, like Ou he did this without ever seeing the USENIX material, choosing instead (apparently deliberately) to target an extremely old and out-of-date version of the writeup [7]. Gutmann's response also points out other odd behaviour from the ZDNet bloggers, including implications of Ou sending him obscenity-laced private email and complaining to his university administration about him. [5] However, Ou maintains that he never sent any obscene emails to Peter Gutmann, and that he only challenged what Peter Gutmann has admittedly said and posted on his website making the debate on the USENIX slides a red herring."

[Europlus]

It's interesting to see Ou cite the Wikipedia article on Gutmann as "evidence". If you look at the article it repeats more or less verbatim a pile of Ou's unverified claims about Gutmann. Gee, I wonder who's been editing that Wikipedia article? (when he's not busy engaging in flamewars in any blog anywhere that mentions his name). Looks like another Ou classic of circular logic, create your own facts and then use them as a reference to back up your arguments.

[GaryPatterson]

Hey Ou - did you really respond to his presentation without ever seeing it? Is that what professional journalists do these days instead of checking facts?In the old days, that'd be called a lack of journalistic integrity, but I guess that's not an issue on the Intarweb.

The Macalope didn't post anything but links to various buttals and rebuttals. Sadly Ou comes across as a jackass through his email style, which seems to consist of childish insults and swearing. But hey! what do I know? I'm just someone who's so old fashioned I still use phrases like "journalistic integrity."

[george_ou]

Hey Patterson, did you ever read my article before you believe the lies? I never criticized Gutmann's USENIX presentation; I only criticized his public report which he posted on his website. I only criticized Gutmann's specific comments he made at USENIX that were reported by PCWorld and which Gutmann admitted to have said. What part of that do you not understand? Gutmann pretty much uses his slides as his permanent hostage against any criticisms. Dare to criticize him on anything else that have nothing to do with his slides, he'll claim you never saw his slides since he refused to release them. It's his permanent red herring.

I have not used any swearing here or any insults here, yet you continue to make false accusations against me which is cheap and childish. Gutmann doesn't even claim explicitly that I sent him obscene emails; he only implies it. But for the last time, I NEVER SENT GUTMANN ANY OBSCENE EMAILS OR CALLED HIM ANY NAMES. What's ridiculous is that Gutmann won't come straight out and accuse me of that but he will insinuate it.

[Macalope]

OK, fine. Do you deny that those emails at the bottom of the link are yours? Does it really matter if this issue has driven you so apoplectic that you called someone else "a **cking moron"?

The thing of it is, George, there's a lot of back and forth here and there's only one of you who's resorting to ALL CAPS (like, hey, right here!) and curse words.

The Macalope will note your objection in the post.

[GaryPatterson]

Sorry Ou, but after your previous Mac wireless security fiasco, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. If it's a war of words, where you say something and someone else says something different, I'm more inclined to believe the second person over you until there's evidence either way. This email issue may be proven one way or the other, but until then...

Secondly I stand by my comments about journalistic integrity. Those slides are up no Gutmann's site, but you used second-hand impressions and quotes while assuming their accuracy. That global warming bit was a one-line joke ("Coming soon to Slashdot: 'Windows Vista causes Global Warming'") but you stuck it in a headline because either you knew it was a joke but wanted sensationalism or you didn't know it was a joke because you relied on secondhand sources (something you criticise Gutmann for in one of your posts).

The debunking of the CPU-load issue seems fair enough, but as with the Mac wireless episode, the chatter surrounding the issue is all based on rumours, hearsay, what people thought other people said - in short it's weak from both sides, but ZDnet hasn't been well-served by its bloggers.

[george_ou]

Gary, I don't care about his slides, I never criticized his slides. The fact that they are up now doesn?t change the fact that he held on to them for months as a hostage and a red herring. I only criticized the content that was on his website for over a year and I criticized his global warming comments which he confirmed. He never backed down on it. It wasn't second hand info, I asked Peter Gutmann if he made the comment and he confirmed it.

It's not just the CPU loading thing; it's the fact that he used a bunch of web forum postings as his evidence for a "scientific paper". I debunked all those web forum postings and accusations of high CPU utilization here http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723

Now as for the chattering and the rumors, you and the Macalope are the ones spreading them and you are the only one calling me a J**A$$. I have kept it civil here and I never emailed Gutmann calling him names or posted anything anywhere calling him names. You stand here accusing me of what I haven't done and you turn right around and do it yourself.

[george_ou]

Gary, I don't care about his slides, I never criticized his slides. The fact that they are up now doesn?t change the fact that he held on to them for months as a hostage and a red herring. I only criticized the content that was on his website for over a year and I criticized his global warming comments which he confirmed. He never backed down on it. It wasn't second hand info, I asked Peter Gutmann if he made the comment and he confirmed it.

It's not just the CPU loading thing; it's the fact that he used a bunch of web forum postings as his evidence for a "scientific paper". I debunked all those web forum postings and accusations of high CPU utilization here http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723

Now as for the chattering and the rumors, you and the Macalope are the ones spreading them and you are the only one calling me a J**A$$. I have kept it civil here and I never emailed Gutmann calling him names or posted anything anywhere calling him names. You stand here and accuse me of doing things I haven?t done but you turn around and do them yourself.

[Macalope]

George, the Macalope is not sure how linking to something is considered spreading a rumor and he notices that you haven't denied that you did indeed send those emails to *someone* who must have passed them on to Gutmann. Please tell us if that is not the case and the post will be updated.

Is the current update inaccurate? You don't say, you just say we're accusing you of things. The Macalope is not accusing you of anything other than having a short fuse (at least in this particular tete a tete), he's just pointing to Gutmann's response.

[george_ou]

As I've said over and over again, I have never called Gutmann any names in my blogs and I have never sent Gutmann any harassing emails calling him names or using obscenities. Whether or not I ever used obscenities in private is really none of your business and it really doesn't belong in a public forum. I don't owe you an explanation just like you don?t need to tell me if you?ve ever used obscenities in private. All I can tell you is that I have behaved in a civilized manner in public and in private in my dealings with Peter Gutmann and if Gutmann says otherwise, he?s lying to you.

Gutmann on the other hand has flat out lied to journalists about me going around asking for his slides when I never did any such thing. Gutmann in his link you posted flat out misleads you about Ed Bott and me and you're spreading these rumors without ever checking with the other party. You don?t bother linking to what I have written pertaining to Gutmann but you?re willing to misrepresent my work that I somehow failed to check with the source on the slide material. None of this is even pertinent but you come here digging up old rumors on he-said she-said to smear me in your gossip column. It ain?t cool.

[george_ou]

As I've said over and over again, I have never called Gutmann any names in my blogs and I have never sent Gutmann any harassing emails calling him names or using obscenities. Whether or not I ever used obscenities in private is really none of your business and it really doesn't belong in a public forum. I don't owe you an explanation just like you don?t need to tell me if you?ve ever used obscenities in private. All I can tell you is that I have behaved in a civilized manner in public and in private in my dealings with Peter Gutmann and if Gutmann says otherwise, he?s lying to you.

Gutmann on the other hand has flat out lied to journalists about me going around asking for his slides when I never did any such thing. Gutmann in his link you posted flat out misleads you about Ed Bott and me and you're spreading these rumors without ever checking with the other party. You don?t bother linking to what I have written pertaining to Gutmann but you?re willing to misrepresent my work that I somehow failed to check with the source on the slide material. None of this is even pertinent but you come here digging up old rumors on he-said she-said to smear me in your gossip column. It ain?t cool.

[Obvioustroll]

George,

People are likely to believe you are less than civil. Once you latch onto something you will not let it go even if it is pretty obvious your original suspicion or assertion is off.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=329

Someone takes apart the answers of an Apple rep and you print them as if there was a grand conspiracy to dance around the question. Simple logic would have given you the answer.
Maybor wanted to make Apple look bad. He found a wireless hole in a card he could plug into a Mac. Ignoring the fact that only in exceptional situations would anyone use a 3rd party card on their mac (internal died and they are too cheap to get it fixed) he then proceeded to act like this was a problem for them and stage a presentation. You fell for it.
He went ahead and told Apple about it and acted as if they didn't care even though logic would indicate that they shouldn't. Not their product, not their code, not their issue. They asked him for info about THEIR machines (the repeated requests) and he provided none about their code or machines.
Normally Apple people would shrug, ignore it since it actually isn't their problem and forward it to the people who actually have the problem but they couldn't. Your coverage along with every person wanting to take Apple down a notch forced them to look into it and see if someone else could do it soon. If they could, it would be a black eye. Apple performs audit and sees issues that might happen so they proactively fix it.

After that, you go around saying it's all suspicious and hinting at a cover up and how Maynor was being disgraced and such. Never mind the fact that he was sensationalizing an exploit that was not even a likely scenario and just grabbing his 15 minutes.

While I am impressed at your willingness to defend your name, and your blog is often insightful and I agree and disagree but can understand the information, your stubborness fails you. You need to be more Zen sometimes and just let things go. Just like Gutmann does.

Shame on you Macalope. This is like blowing up stuff with M80s. Amusing but serves no real purpose.

[george_ou]

Obvioustroll,

I respect your right to disagree with me. However, there's nothing "stubborn" about being willing to debunk a bunch of rumors and lies, it's called perseverance and honor. If you think I?m wrong, that?s your right. But it?s my right to defend myself and there?s nothing ?less than civil? about it and it?s funny you don?t? talk your doing the name calling and the rumor spreading.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up David Maynor's case, that was already settled when I explained that Apple was the one who started the assault on Maynor. I know this because Apple told me they did this http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=451.

[george_ou]

Obvioustroll,

I respect your right to disagree with me. However, there's nothing "stubborn" about being willing to debunk a bunch of rumors and lies, it's called perseverance and honor. If you think I?m wrong, that?s your right. But it?s my right to defend myself and there?s nothing ?less than civil? about it and it?s funny you don?t? talk your doing the name calling and the rumor spreading.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up David Maynor's case, that was already settled when I explained that Apple was the one who started the assault on Maynor. I know this because Apple told me they did this http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=451.

[GaryPatterson]

That link by Goerge Ou doesn't confirm that "Apple told [him] they did this" at all. The most it does is mention another, off the record conversation that we need to take on trust shows Ou's point.

Well, maybe Apple did all that Ou claims and maybe not. He doesn't provide actual evidence one way or the other.

I won't take any claim of wrongdoing on trust, and I have a hard time believing any company would orchestrate such a huge conspiracy simply to silence a few security people when other security researchers are not silenced at all.

This is why Ou has no credibility in my eyes. No evidence to support his claims except convenient off the record info which (of course) cannot be published.

[Obvioustroll]

George,

Perhaps if you had read for content you would have understood why I brought that up.

I stated that you will decide on a point and defend it and continue to claim you are correct even after people have shown how utterly stupid the point was. The example shows the whole mess with Maynor and is the perfect example.

"That was settled when I..." No it wasn't. In fact you never actually brought any real evidence of anything and everybody with simple deductive reasoning saw it. Had you actually shown a legitimate source that was not hearsay or some other undocumented source that specifically showed Maynor did, in fact, find this vulnerability in Apple's drivers or that he had shown it to Apple, you might have had a valid point. You did not. Heck you state Maynor's comment is a misquote in defending yourself and say they left out the word "Character." Somehow you failed to see how the original quote could never have worked with inserting the word character anywhere in it. You appear to be doing your best to defend yourself while making mistakes that made you look less than honest.

Using noble terms such as perseverance and honor to justify your actions doesn't change the underlying actions. This is a debate tactic where a party attempts to undermine the other's credibility by showing themselves in a good light and through inference the other party represents the opposite qualities. Good attempt but it fails to have anything to do with the issue and most people see right through it.

"your doing the name calling and the rumor spreading."
First, it is you're.
Second, I said you are seen as stubborn. If that is name calling in your book, so be it.
Third, I didn't spread a single damn rumor. This is debate tactic where you use subtle name calling to put your opponent in a bad light and try to knock them off center. Normally this works as the opponent responds with an attempt to justify themselves and so confirms your comments. I won't. Call me whatever you damn well please.

[Europlus]

It's interesting to see Ou cite the Wikipedia article on Gutmann as "evidence". If you look at the article it repeats more or less verbatim a pile of Ou's unverified claims about Gutmann. Gee, I wonder who's been editing that Wikipedia article? (when he's not busy engaging in flamewars in any blog anywhere that mentions his name). Looks like another Ou classic of circular logic, create your own facts and then use them as a reference to back up your arguments.

[zkiwi]

And in other news, Ou seems to have been "restructured" off of zdnet.com.