7 ms·

The irony here is that simple one-time-pad solutions (OTP) will continue to be available to securely encrypt the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists (

The irony here is that simple one-time-pad solutions (OTP) will continue to be available to securely encrypt the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists (relatively short infrequent messages), instead it's the general communications (including for banking) that the rest of us perform online that will be made vulnerable. You don't even have to program or use a computer to create these OTP solutions, for limited messages you could just flip a coin to create the OTP if necessary (although there are lots of more automated solutions available as well.) Airgapped computers at both ends provide another way 'round restrictions for more sophisticated actors. Their backdoors won't be accessible (remotely.) So taking away secure encryption from the rest of us is just security theatre; a destructive, narcissistic legislative exercise designed to make it look like the pompous powerful doing something when they're doing nothing of any real use while creating terrible risks. This is why, I think, legislators have consistently ignoring logic and math from professionals such as the OP - they don't care. They know perfectly well they're pissing into the wind doing nothing useful; that it's all theatre; they just think the fallout is going to land on someone else's pants after they're out of office. But tech works (and fails) faster than that. [Counterargument: if everything else is breakable, securely encrypted messages really stand out. One answer: But very short messages (in an unknown format) aren't generally breakable, anyway, and that's the likely case.]

rietta 10y ago
One time pads are perfect! Everything less than that trades security for convenience. So true.
- omginternets 10y ago
  Key management is a very real issue in cryptographic systems. Arguably, convenient key management improves security. Simplistic interpretations are the bane of security engineering, especially where human factors are involved.
  - rietta 10y ago
    Indeed. I'm about to have a form of that conversation with a client today. Just encrypting columns in your database is of some value, but having the symmetric key in an environment variable (a common practice) is not going to prevent a breach when the data and the key are compromised at the same time.
- strictnein 10y ago
  If used properly they are, but many times people get lazy and reuse pads or use pads that are too short.
- _jal 10y ago
  Of course, that perfection is achieved by shifting all your risk to key distribution. I think of OTPs as a form of time-shifting. Think of it this way: if you and your correspondent have viable OTPs, that implies that, at some point in the past, you securely communicated that OTP. Since it is (at least) the length of a future message, you could have just passed a secure message then. Instead, you passed something that enables passing a secure message now.
  - libeclipse 10y ago
    Imagine implementing your amazing solution in real life. I don't see a situation being frequent where you'd know the message weeks or months in advance of when you send it. If we follow your scheme, there's no encryption; we just meet up when we need to communicate. What if we're on opposite sides of the earth? If we had exchanged keys months earlier, this wouldn't be a problem.
    - _jal 10y ago
      I must have explained poorly. I was not proposing "just communicate securely in advance". I was highlighting the problem with OTPs. The fact that your key material is the same size as the message means all your security is in the key, thus in your key distribution method. Among other problems, this means no rekeying without replicating your original hand-off - you can communicate exactly as many bits as your previously securely exchanged, no more.
      - libeclipse 10y ago
        > means all of your security is in the key ...erm, isn't that the point?
        _jal 10y ago
        Speaking of points, I can't tell if you're intentionally missing mine, but either way this is unproductive. If you're sincerely confused, please read up a bit. The Wikipedia page isn't a terrible place to start.
Klathmon 10y ago
>But very short messages (in an unknown format) aren't generally breakable, anyway, and that's the likely case. Hell, in most cases they wouldn't be detectable! With so much random data flying around today, you could encode short messages in just about anything. comments on reddit or hn or one of the alternatives, image metadata, etc... If you are looking to hide data on the scale of kilobytes, your options are basically unlimited.
- mirimir 10y ago
  For example, such covert channels as packet timing. Edit: On a 5 Mbps video stream, that could give you 5-50 kbps bandwidth.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Right - I was going to mention Steganography, but that's a long back-and-forth discussion.
slededit 10y ago
Convenience really does play a part here though. The easier it is to be secure the more people will take advantage of it. Good for the most part - but bad from the FBI's perspective when a criminal uses it to hide their misdeeds. The likelihood for a criminal to use a one time pad is extremely low. The likelihood of them having an encrypted cell phone with useful information is much higher. It would be tough to argue that a law against cell phone encryption wouldn't be effective for this purpose. More valid criticism is its disproportionate impact on lawful uses.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  > The likelihood for a criminal to use a one time pad is extremely low. The likelihood of them having an encrypted cell phone with useful information is much higher. Maybe that's the case right now, but how can you be so confident that these actors won't switch to OTP if such a law is enacted?
  - slededit 10y ago
    Because prior to cell phone total encryption (less than 10 years ago) we did not have a pandemic of criminals using one time pads.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      That's a terrible example. Encryption wasn't mainstream at all back then and, more crucially, digital surveillance was still in its infancy. The most popular chat app in the world right now implements full E2E encryption. Go back 10 years and having a "chat" consisted of sending your friends SMS messages.
      - slededit 10y ago
        Exactly - and yet most criminals were happy to use that insecure and broken SMS. I'd love to see a study on the proportion of criminals that even know what encryption is. I expect it to be extremely low.
benevol 10y ago
> So taking away secure encryption from the rest of us is just security theatre Even more importantly, it's a power grab of the powerful (which mostly translates into "the rich", and vice versa) aiming to further dominate and manipulate the remaining population ("the 99%") in order to secure and increase their dominant situation.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  One of my favourite economists has a quote I like. > The Hampton's aren't a defensible position.
sleepingeights 10y ago
Well, 'they' allowed door locks to be easily broken by anyone with minuscule knowledge in lockpicking because that is the type of locks 'they' like on doors. It's going to be no different for "crypto" solutions. *Part of the FBI's job was to harrass anyone they considered a dissident or counter to their view of what US citizen should be or how they should behave. I doubt they changed at all. It's already documented and well known one of their favorite tactics was to break into people's homes while they're sleeping, or away, move things around... mess with their belongings or persons, etc... Expect it to be the same for crypto solutions "post quantum", if not already "pre quantum".
- Taek 10y ago
  Picking locks requires physical presence. Stealing bank credentials online can be done from another continent using public wifi. It's not a great comparison because the number of criminals with access to your computer is much higher than the number of criminals with access to your front door (multiple orders of magnitude), and their ability to distance themselves from the act (both geographically and forensically) is also orders of magnitude higher.
  - sleepingeights 10y ago
    We're talking about the security of the lock guarding the door irrespective of the criminal history of a person with the motivation to break-in. The FBI, who have been known to break-in to people's residences were not found guilty and therefore are not considered criminals by law.
pjc50 10y ago
> the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists It seems increasingly apparent that recruitment and radicalisation are done in the open. After all, political speech is free speech. Then people either self-radicalise (go on a murder spree without coordinating action with a larger group; e.g. many mass shooters), or they meet up in person. Lots of radicalised people go to the Middle East where they can't be surveilled by western security forces. There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption. Even if they were, we Americans have a fundamental right to strong encryption, protected under the Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. I'd go further still, and argue that everyone in the world (who's not a prisoner or otherwise unfree) has a right to strong encryption.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  "There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption." If true, more reason to let the rest of us bank safely with it. There are ISIS manuals, and advice to use the best of the apps available.
libeclipse 10y ago
Or terrorists could simply use open source, secure solutions and ignore the backdoored implementations. Citizens lose.
strictnein 10y ago
I'd rank the ability of terrorists to properly utilize OTPs as relatively low.
nebabyte 10y ago
> instead it's the general communications (including for banking) that the rest of us perform online that will be made vulnerable Hardly ironic at all, since as long as someone stands to gain either money or power from doing so, they will simply do so under guise of the former. Not ironies, just tactics.

rietta 10y ago

One time pads are perfect! Everything less than that trades security for convenience. So true.

omginternets 10y ago
Key management is a very real issue in cryptographic systems. Arguably, convenient key management improves security. Simplistic interpretations are the bane of security engineering, especially where human factors are involved.
- rietta 10y ago
  Indeed. I'm about to have a form of that conversation with a client today. Just encrypting columns in your database is of some value, but having the symmetric key in an environment variable (a common practice) is not going to prevent a breach when the data and the key are compromised at the same time.
strictnein 10y ago
If used properly they are, but many times people get lazy and reuse pads or use pads that are too short.
_jal 10y ago
Of course, that perfection is achieved by shifting all your risk to key distribution. I think of OTPs as a form of time-shifting. Think of it this way: if you and your correspondent have viable OTPs, that implies that, at some point in the past, you securely communicated that OTP. Since it is (at least) the length of a future message, you could have just passed a secure message then. Instead, you passed something that enables passing a secure message now.
- libeclipse 10y ago
  Imagine implementing your amazing solution in real life. I don't see a situation being frequent where you'd know the message weeks or months in advance of when you send it. If we follow your scheme, there's no encryption; we just meet up when we need to communicate. What if we're on opposite sides of the earth? If we had exchanged keys months earlier, this wouldn't be a problem.
  - _jal 10y ago
    I must have explained poorly. I was not proposing "just communicate securely in advance". I was highlighting the problem with OTPs. The fact that your key material is the same size as the message means all your security is in the key, thus in your key distribution method. Among other problems, this means no rekeying without replicating your original hand-off - you can communicate exactly as many bits as your previously securely exchanged, no more.
    - libeclipse 10y ago
      > means all of your security is in the key ...erm, isn't that the point?
      - _jal 10y ago
        Speaking of points, I can't tell if you're intentionally missing mine, but either way this is unproductive. If you're sincerely confused, please read up a bit. The Wikipedia page isn't a terrible place to start.

Klathmon 10y ago

>But very short messages (in an unknown format) aren't generally breakable, anyway, and that's the likely case. Hell, in most cases they wouldn't be detectable! With so much random data flying around today, you could encode short messages in just about anything. comments on reddit or hn or one of the alternatives, image metadata, etc... If you are looking to hide data on the scale of kilobytes, your options are basically unlimited.

mirimir 10y ago
For example, such covert channels as packet timing. Edit: On a 5 Mbps video stream, that could give you 5-50 kbps bandwidth.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Nomentatus 10y ago
Right - I was going to mention Steganography, but that's a long back-and-forth discussion.

slededit 10y ago

Convenience really does play a part here though. The easier it is to be secure the more people will take advantage of it. Good for the most part - but bad from the FBI's perspective when a criminal uses it to hide their misdeeds. The likelihood for a criminal to use a one time pad is extremely low. The likelihood of them having an encrypted cell phone with useful information is much higher. It would be tough to argue that a law against cell phone encryption wouldn't be effective for this purpose. More valid criticism is its disproportionate impact on lawful uses.

Cyph0n 10y ago
> The likelihood for a criminal to use a one time pad is extremely low. The likelihood of them having an encrypted cell phone with useful information is much higher. Maybe that's the case right now, but how can you be so confident that these actors won't switch to OTP if such a law is enacted?
- slededit 10y ago
  Because prior to cell phone total encryption (less than 10 years ago) we did not have a pandemic of criminals using one time pads.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    That's a terrible example. Encryption wasn't mainstream at all back then and, more crucially, digital surveillance was still in its infancy. The most popular chat app in the world right now implements full E2E encryption. Go back 10 years and having a "chat" consisted of sending your friends SMS messages.
    - slededit 10y ago
      Exactly - and yet most criminals were happy to use that insecure and broken SMS. I'd love to see a study on the proportion of criminals that even know what encryption is. I expect it to be extremely low.

benevol 10y ago

> So taking away secure encryption from the rest of us is just security theatre Even more importantly, it's a power grab of the powerful (which mostly translates into "the rich", and vice versa) aiming to further dominate and manipulate the remaining population ("the 99%") in order to secure and increase their dominant situation.

noir_lord 10y ago
One of my favourite economists has a quote I like. > The Hampton's aren't a defensible position.

sleepingeights 10y ago

Well, 'they' allowed door locks to be easily broken by anyone with minuscule knowledge in lockpicking because that is the type of locks 'they' like on doors. It's going to be no different for "crypto" solutions. *Part of the FBI's job was to harrass anyone they considered a dissident or counter to their view of what US citizen should be or how they should behave. I doubt they changed at all. It's already documented and well known one of their favorite tactics was to break into people's homes while they're sleeping, or away, move things around... mess with their belongings or persons, etc... Expect it to be the same for crypto solutions "post quantum", if not already "pre quantum".

Taek 10y ago
Picking locks requires physical presence. Stealing bank credentials online can be done from another continent using public wifi. It's not a great comparison because the number of criminals with access to your computer is much higher than the number of criminals with access to your front door (multiple orders of magnitude), and their ability to distance themselves from the act (both geographically and forensically) is also orders of magnitude higher.
- sleepingeights 10y ago
  We're talking about the security of the lock guarding the door irrespective of the criminal history of a person with the motivation to break-in. The FBI, who have been known to break-in to people's residences were not found guilty and therefore are not considered criminals by law.

pjc50 10y ago

> the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists It seems increasingly apparent that recruitment and radicalisation are done in the open. After all, political speech is free speech. Then people either self-radicalise (go on a murder spree without coordinating action with a larger group; e.g. many mass shooters), or they meet up in person. Lots of radicalised people go to the Middle East where they can't be surveilled by western security forces. There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption.

wtbob 10y ago
> There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption. Even if they were, we Americans have a fundamental right to strong encryption, protected under the Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. I'd go further still, and argue that everyone in the world (who's not a prisoner or otherwise unfree) has a right to strong encryption.
Nomentatus 10y ago
"There's remarkably little evidence that terrorists are making routine use of strong encryption." If true, more reason to let the rest of us bank safely with it. There are ISIS manuals, and advice to use the best of the apps available.

libeclipse 10y ago

Or terrorists could simply use open source, secure solutions and ignore the backdoored implementations. Citizens lose.

strictnein 10y ago

I'd rank the ability of terrorists to properly utilize OTPs as relatively low.

nebabyte 10y ago

> instead it's the general communications (including for banking) that the rest of us perform online that will be made vulnerable Hardly ironic at all, since as long as someone stands to gain either money or power from doing so, they will simply do so under guise of the former. Not ironies, just tactics.