3 ms·

Makes sense, but at the end of the day didn't he fall for the same basic phishing attack so many others do? If it's so effective and easy I have to imagine the

by dahdum 10y ago

Makes sense, but at the end of the day didn't he fall for the same basic phishing attack so many others do? If it's so effective and easy I have to imagine the NSA is doing the same. Whole thing makes me really wonder if using insecure email in government is a good idea...

eric_h 10y ago
I think there are countless examples across government, industry and personal accounts that using insecure email is a universally bad idea. Unfortunately it has the strongest network effect at the moment, and no one's come up with a way to get everyone to use encryption/cryptographic signatures yet.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Surely an agency like NSA could make such rules?!
tptacek 10y ago
There is no secure email. If you need to send a message securely, don't use email to do it. I agree with you.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
It's long been known not to use insecure endpoints, email, etc in government. NSA used to certify the high-assurance alternatives. Here was one of the early ones with incredibly-strong TCB for the time: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.4029&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454... Almost all older or modern ones build email processing capabilities onto guards optionally with a proxy on client's side to integrate with common, mail client. Here's an article describing what a guard is along with some examples government uses today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) Firewalls are knockoffs of guards that were created after businesses and much of government rejected high-assurance systems since they didn't have development pace and [insecure] features of low-security competition. Firewalls were cheap, fast, constantly added features, and totally left off the whole "design it to be nearly unhackable" aspect of guards. Even the guards themselves have lowered their assurance at the TCB and guard software over the years as neither military nor commercial market really care outside a small niche of customers. Remaining ones like Boeing SNS Server and BAE's XTS-400 go for $100,000+ a unit due to limited market + high development & certification costs. So, that's that. Medium-assurance solutions like Nexor's and General Dynamics continue being developed and adopted. They'll get smashed, though, since they're all adopting Linux-based cores & other COTS tech. Such are the market incentives.

by dahdum 10y ago

eric_h 10y ago

I think there are countless examples across government, industry and personal accounts that using insecure email is a universally bad idea. Unfortunately it has the strongest network effect at the moment, and no one's come up with a way to get everyone to use encryption/cryptographic signatures yet.

jessaustin 10y ago
Surely an agency like NSA could make such rules?!

tptacek 10y ago

There is no secure email. If you need to send a message securely, don't use email to do it. I agree with you.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

It's long been known not to use insecure endpoints, email, etc in government. NSA used to certify the high-assurance alternatives. Here was one of the early ones with incredibly-strong TCB for the time: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.4029&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454... Almost all older or modern ones build email processing capabilities onto guards optionally with a proxy on client's side to integrate with common, mail client. Here's an article describing what a guard is along with some examples government uses today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(information_security) Firewalls are knockoffs of guards that were created after businesses and much of government rejected high-assurance systems since they didn't have development pace and [insecure] features of low-security competition. Firewalls were cheap, fast, constantly added features, and totally left off the whole "design it to be nearly unhackable" aspect of guards. Even the guards themselves have lowered their assurance at the TCB and guard software over the years as neither military nor commercial market really care outside a small niche of customers. Remaining ones like Boeing SNS Server and BAE's XTS-400 go for $100,000+ a unit due to limited market + high development & certification costs. So, that's that. Medium-assurance solutions like Nexor's and General Dynamics continue being developed and adopted. They'll get smashed, though, since they're all adopting Linux-based cores & other COTS tech. Such are the market incentives.