7 ms·
"... Security experts agree that trying to protect communications on a non-smartphone is basically a lost cause... I think there's perhaps more anonymity in a $
by bootload 15y ago
"... Security experts agree that trying to protect communications on a non-smartphone is basically a lost cause... I think there's perhaps more anonymity in a $20 phone. ..."
Well they'd say that wouldn't they. Old school tradecraft: Using an 'output-feedback mode stream cipher' (Pontifex) and a cheap phone gives you a secure and anonymous, 1 to many messaging system. It was designed specifically for covert 'dead-drops' communication. There are a few caveats, but it's lo-tech & bruce reckons it works ~ http://www.schneier.com/solitaire.html http://www.schneier.com/solitaire.html
- pyre 15y agoI'm not quite understanding this. I understand what Pontifex/Solitaire is, but how do they fit together with the cheap phone and dead-drops? I could see using Pontifex to encrypt text messages, but how do dead-drops fit into this? Communicating the location of the drops? Dead-dropping the phone with encrypted messages on it?
- bootload 15y ago"... how do they fit together with the cheap phone and dead-drops? ..." If you don't want anyone to know you are sending a message to another person you encrypt a message & leave it at a specific place with a marker. I assume you get this. But if you give a call with an an encrypted message on any phone you potentially give the game away. With a cheap $20 phone used minimally or once, sending a hand encrypted message using Solitaire you get anonymity and security.
- pyre 15y agoOk. But, 1. Where does the one-to-many part come in? 2. Is there any reason other than plausible deniability to use a cheap cellphone vs. anything else (piece of paper, memory card, etc)?