4 ms·

The author forgets that governments aren't very good at protecting their own secrets. For example, if even the NSA can't protect its own secret hacking tools f

by natch 8y ago

The author forgets that governments aren't very good at protecting their own secrets. For example, if even the NSA can't protect its own secret hacking tools from leaking, why should anyone expect they, or any such entity for that matter, can be trusted to always protect all their secret keys? Answer: They can't. Any other answer is a fantasy. Unless I am missing something here, it seems this problem utterly destroys the author's argument.

ryanlol 8y ago
I'm not sure if this is actually the case. HSMs exist and it should be well within the governments capabilities to implement sufficient physical controls to defend against attacks. I mean, they seem to manage pretty well with nuclear weapons.
- code_beers 8y ago
  Not really. https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587 https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-...
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    I think at best this supports my point, despite the sloppy launch control none of these nukes were hijacked. Extracting keys from a securely stored HSM designed to prevent key extraction should present a far bigger challenge than keying in 00000000 to launch the missiles.
- natch 8y ago
  >I mean, they seem to manage pretty well with nuclear weapons. "Seem to" but no. They don't. With countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and China all having got ahold of the know-how to make nukes, all evidence is that government has failed spectacularly on this front.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    I don't believe so. If one of those states managed to seize a US nuclear weapon, that'd be evidence of such a failure. The specific case of protecting backdoor keys really comes down to keeping from getting physically stolen, which at least the US government should be perfectly capable of.
    - natch 8y ago
      Mere assertions that they "should be perfectly capable" are just vacuous statements that don't mean anything. 1) We're not just talking about the US government that will have access to keys. 2) The US government has shown itself to be perfectly capable of losing secrets. I'm not saying, as you did, they "should be." I'm saying they have proved it. So have the governments of other countries. 3) We don't know how those countries got all the information they have. We may know where some of their information came from, but not all of it. 4) NSA is supposed to be our best and brightest at protecting secrets. Look what they did. 5) Some proposals for encryption backdoors allow for access by law enforcement at almost any level, down to local sheriff / police. They would probably stop just above mall cop, if they could. If you have a retort to just some of these points, unfortunately that doesn't fix the problem. You would have to be able to answer all of them. A leak only takes one weak point.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        >We're not just talking about the US government that will have access to keys. Well I doubt the $insert_country would want to share their keys with others. Why would they? It'd make far more sense to send in encrypted message and get decrypted message back. >The US government has shown itself to be perfectly capable of losing secrets. But not even remotely comparable secrets. We're essentially talking about a physical item here, not a secret you can lose without losing possession of that item. >Some proposals for encryption backdoors allow for access by law enforcement at almost any level, down to local sheriff / police This may present logistical challenges for handling decryption requests, but I don't see it as a huge issue for keeping the keys from leaking. Obviously I'm not actually advocating this, I just think that you're making some rather dishonest arguments here.

by natch 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago

I'm not sure if this is actually the case. HSMs exist and it should be well within the governments capabilities to implement sufficient physical controls to defend against attacks. I mean, they seem to manage pretty well with nuclear weapons.

code_beers 8y ago
Not really. https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587 https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-...
- ryanlol 8y ago
  I think at best this supports my point, despite the sloppy launch control none of these nukes were hijacked. Extracting keys from a securely stored HSM designed to prevent key extraction should present a far bigger challenge than keying in 00000000 to launch the missiles.
natch 8y ago
>I mean, they seem to manage pretty well with nuclear weapons. "Seem to" but no. They don't. With countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and China all having got ahold of the know-how to make nukes, all evidence is that government has failed spectacularly on this front.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  I don't believe so. If one of those states managed to seize a US nuclear weapon, that'd be evidence of such a failure. The specific case of protecting backdoor keys really comes down to keeping from getting physically stolen, which at least the US government should be perfectly capable of.
  - natch 8y ago
    Mere assertions that they "should be perfectly capable" are just vacuous statements that don't mean anything. 1) We're not just talking about the US government that will have access to keys. 2) The US government has shown itself to be perfectly capable of losing secrets. I'm not saying, as you did, they "should be." I'm saying they have proved it. So have the governments of other countries. 3) We don't know how those countries got all the information they have. We may know where some of their information came from, but not all of it. 4) NSA is supposed to be our best and brightest at protecting secrets. Look what they did. 5) Some proposals for encryption backdoors allow for access by law enforcement at almost any level, down to local sheriff / police. They would probably stop just above mall cop, if they could. If you have a retort to just some of these points, unfortunately that doesn't fix the problem. You would have to be able to answer all of them. A leak only takes one weak point.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      >We're not just talking about the US government that will have access to keys. Well I doubt the $insert_country would want to share their keys with others. Why would they? It'd make far more sense to send in encrypted message and get decrypted message back. >The US government has shown itself to be perfectly capable of losing secrets. But not even remotely comparable secrets. We're essentially talking about a physical item here, not a secret you can lose without losing possession of that item. >Some proposals for encryption backdoors allow for access by law enforcement at almost any level, down to local sheriff / police This may present logistical challenges for handling decryption requests, but I don't see it as a huge issue for keeping the keys from leaking. Obviously I'm not actually advocating this, I just think that you're making some rather dishonest arguments here.