3 ms·

Bruce's points against broadcast encryption seem rather weak to me. If it was possible to distribute secret keys during WW2, surely it's also possible in 2009

by motters 17y ago

Bruce's points against broadcast encryption seem rather weak to me. If it was possible to distribute secret keys during WW2, surely it's also possible in 2009 - probably a great deal faster and more efficiently. If a UAV was flying over areas of the world that I know well it's highly likely that I'd be able to identify the locations that it was looking at, and send out warnings/orders accordingly. Also I could perform reconnaissance on the typical flight paths of the UAVs, and plan accordingly. Probably a major risk in the world of 24 hour news and P2P networks is the possibility of recording and later re-broadcasting closeup video of what happens when UAVs misidentify their targets and hit civilian populations. This could result in some public relations catastrophes for the UAV operators. If the military are happy for this information to be broadcast unencrypted they should also prepare themselves for said footage to appear on YouTube or TV news.

redcap 17y ago
Every accessor needs the keys - all relevant field commanders, etc. They also need security clearances. The keys need to be stored and managed securely. They should also be updated regularly, which means that all commanders need new keys at some point. I presume the keys for each UAV would be different. In WW2 it was only a few top commanders who worked with Ultra (afaik), and it wasn't anywhere as regular as broadcast video. I guess the main difference here is the number of users is that much greater and in Schneier's opinion the value of the information is that much lesser.
ErrantX 17y ago
> If it was possible to distribute secret keys during WW2, surely it's also possible in 2009 - probably a great deal faster and more efficiently. Not really. Think how widely these keys would have to be spread to have any use. The drones are often used for immediate intervention: i.e. if needed they are launched to provide forward intelligence to units on the ground. That kind of key management is a nightmare: especially when you think other nationalities/agencies/services might require the feed instantly too. It would be a perfect setup to have encryption and key management - and I expect that technically a structure could be set up to do it securely. But one important feature of battlefields is that they get extremely confused and disorganised - it would break down at key moments, and regularly. The key to battlefield tech is always simpicity. So it's a tradeoff; one that doesn't seem to have worked out badly so far.

by motters 17y ago

redcap 17y ago

Every accessor needs the keys - all relevant field commanders, etc. They also need security clearances. The keys need to be stored and managed securely. They should also be updated regularly, which means that all commanders need new keys at some point. I presume the keys for each UAV would be different. In WW2 it was only a few top commanders who worked with Ultra (afaik), and it wasn't anywhere as regular as broadcast video. I guess the main difference here is the number of users is that much greater and in Schneier's opinion the value of the information is that much lesser.

ErrantX 17y ago

> If it was possible to distribute secret keys during WW2, surely it's also possible in 2009 - probably a great deal faster and more efficiently. Not really. Think how widely these keys would have to be spread to have any use. The drones are often used for immediate intervention: i.e. if needed they are launched to provide forward intelligence to units on the ground. That kind of key management is a nightmare: especially when you think other nationalities/agencies/services might require the feed instantly too. It would be a perfect setup to have encryption and key management - and I expect that technically a structure could be set up to do it securely. But one important feature of battlefields is that they get extremely confused and disorganised - it would break down at key moments, and regularly. The key to battlefield tech is always simpicity. So it's a tradeoff; one that doesn't seem to have worked out badly so far.