4 ms·

I got the impression that old crook Poindexter and friends decided to go all-offence all the time at the turn of the century. I remember the arguments that sin

by michael1999 4y ago

I got the impression that old crook Poindexter and friends decided to go all-offence all the time at the turn of the century. I remember the arguments that since COTS was the future, and industry practices could never be practically hardened without rebuilding our entire software foundations, it was time to give up. The exploit market became regularized, deep, and liquid, and the TIA vision was the mission. Leaving the OPM twisting in the wind for total compromise reinforces the impression that if anyone at the NSA is actually focused on defence, they aren't doing a very good job. That's more than a generation of attack first, defend last. The S-box fix for DES was 50 years ago. Recent crypto contributions seem much less benevolent. I'm an outsider, and can't really know. I don't doubt your good will, but everything in my career from the Clipper chip fiasco, through Microsoft's incomprehensible 20 year fascination with code-signing in place of actually effective methods, and on up to the present day reinforces this impression.

infamia 4y ago
I think it's important not to let the negative activities of some people in government, cause us to negatively paint people negatively who are doing good and necessary work. Admittedly, this is becoming more difficult as these lines are blurred.
- michael1999 4y ago
  There is no fancy latin name for the error of giving known liars the benefit of the doubt, but there should be. Poindexter and friends betrayed the constitution, and set the tone for the organization as all-offence, all-the-time. It's not a fallacy to believe the stated goals of senior officials set the direction for organizations. I am 100% confident that there are employees at the NSA tasked with defence that are diligent and motivated. I am 90% confident their budgets and other institutional support are a small fraction of the offence side of the house. I am less confident, but still believe that at least some defence activities are compromised by the offensive mission. The stink around Dual_EC_DRBG was the public suspecting that even the defence side of the house is lying to us, and is acting as cover for the offence side. I don't see how the NSA can ever recover that credibility after room 641A. That's a stink that's hard to wash off.

infamia 4y ago

I think it's important not to let the negative activities of some people in government, cause us to negatively paint people negatively who are doing good and necessary work. Admittedly, this is becoming more difficult as these lines are blurred.

michael1999 4y ago
There is no fancy latin name for the error of giving known liars the benefit of the doubt, but there should be. Poindexter and friends betrayed the constitution, and set the tone for the organization as all-offence, all-the-time. It's not a fallacy to believe the stated goals of senior officials set the direction for organizations. I am 100% confident that there are employees at the NSA tasked with defence that are diligent and motivated. I am 90% confident their budgets and other institutional support are a small fraction of the offence side of the house. I am less confident, but still believe that at least some defence activities are compromised by the offensive mission. The stink around Dual_EC_DRBG was the public suspecting that even the defence side of the house is lying to us, and is acting as cover for the offence side. I don't see how the NSA can ever recover that credibility after room 641A. That's a stink that's hard to wash off.