4 ms·

"They can attack an encrypted communication and probably decrypt it" Why this assumption? The NSA has NO super-human abilities. And one of their jobs is to pr

"They can attack an encrypted communication and probably decrypt it" Why this assumption? The NSA has NO super-human abilities. And one of their jobs is to protect gov secrets. Which is why they participated in the AES standard. If you really believe they can decrypt AES, then you believe they chose an algo that is insecure, than would allow China, Russia and others with similar abilities to read any of our nation's secrets. Not to mention, that there are currently no known attacks that would allow them to decrypt AES in any reasonable amount of time, even if they had every single computer in the world. If you really believe the NSA can decrypt anything, then you're out in conspiracy-theory land, with magical yet-to-be-invented computers, and humans with super-math abilities.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  AES is approved for use in a type-1 system.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> The NSA has NO super-human abilities. No, but they do have a larger hardware budget than you. And a larger budget for crypto research.
- DennisP 13y ago
  A larger research budget than the entire open cryptographic community? Maybe. But it's not just about budget. A lot of the smartest cryptographers don't work for the NSA anymore, because they like to publish their research, and/or because industry pays better. If you haven't broken the algorithm, a "larger hardware budget" really isn't helpful at all. Key sizes are big enough that the laws of physics prevent you from brute-forcing them. From Bruce Schneier: "If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years, without any loss, we could power a computer to count up to 2^192. Of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter." http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_c... If they've made a huge breakthrough on quantum computers, they could break the popular public-key algorithms, but could only halve the effective key size of symmetric algorithms.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > Key sizes are big enough that the laws of physics prevent you from brute-forcing them A lot of it still boils down to password guessing. The limitation is in the user's choice of password, not the laws of physics. Given the techniques listed here http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-minced-meat-out-of-your-passwords/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-mi... (e.g. generating password guesses with Markov chains) suprisingly long and un-obvious passwords are found without brute-forcing the whole space. In other words, you have to pay attention to a whole lot of lateral things to actually be secure. The mathematical properties of the key-space don't matter if your OS has been backdoored and a keystroke logger installed.
    - DennisP 13y ago
      That's only true if you have a copy of the user's encrypted private key. You've got that if you've confiscated his hard drive, but it doesn't go over the wire. The key itself is random. A keylogger bypasses the whole thing but so far nobody's accusing the NSA of hacking lots of domestic computers, and that would definitely do away with the excuse that "we didn't know he was in the U.S."
      - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
        > That's only true if you have a copy of the user's encrypted private key. it doesn't go over the wire. I know several people who have put all of their (strong) website passwords in a 1password/keepass/truecrypt file covered by a password that they can remember and type; and then put that on dropbox. Over the wire. I am assuming that this is compromised now. > nobody's accusing the NSA of hacking lots of domestic computers Except for here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-t... and http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how... > "we didn't know he was in the U.S." I am sitting in front of a domestic computer that is not in the US. The line about "but only for non-americans" is no reassurance whatsoever to the world.
- etherael 13y ago
  The annoying thing about this defeatist attitude is that people don't realise it's the same thing as being afraid of their massive resources being employed to purchase enormous kettle elements to boil the ocean. As a foreigner with an enormous distaste for the US government and a comfortable relationship with cryptography I say; good luck with that fascists, bring it on.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    I don't think that I personally have a "defeatist attitude". To guard yourself against someone with superior resources but no superpowers is possible, but you do have to be very careful. "cryptography" is not enough - but good cryptography with good passwords, and due care at the points where the decryption happens may be.
- riquito 13y ago
  All the computers in the world wouldn't be able to brute force the strongest crypto algorithms in far more than billions of years. Are you implying that the NSA has access to other planets?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    No, but I am implying that your choice of crypto, your choice of passwords, and your security at the points where the decryption happens had all better be good. They have superior resources but no superpowers. You only have to make one mistake in order to be exposed.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rgbrenner 13y ago
AES is approved for use in a type-1 system.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

> The NSA has NO super-human abilities. No, but they do have a larger hardware budget than you. And a larger budget for crypto research.

DennisP 13y ago
A larger research budget than the entire open cryptographic community? Maybe. But it's not just about budget. A lot of the smartest cryptographers don't work for the NSA anymore, because they like to publish their research, and/or because industry pays better. If you haven't broken the algorithm, a "larger hardware budget" really isn't helpful at all. Key sizes are big enough that the laws of physics prevent you from brute-forcing them. From Bruce Schneier: "If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years, without any loss, we could power a computer to count up to 2^192. Of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter." http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_cr.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the_doghouse_c... If they've made a huge breakthrough on quantum computers, they could break the popular public-key algorithms, but could only halve the effective key size of symmetric algorithms.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > Key sizes are big enough that the laws of physics prevent you from brute-forcing them A lot of it still boils down to password guessing. The limitation is in the user's choice of password, not the laws of physics. Given the techniques listed here http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-minced-meat-out-of-your-passwords/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-mi... (e.g. generating password guesses with Markov chains) suprisingly long and un-obvious passwords are found without brute-forcing the whole space. In other words, you have to pay attention to a whole lot of lateral things to actually be secure. The mathematical properties of the key-space don't matter if your OS has been backdoored and a keystroke logger installed.
  - DennisP 13y ago
    That's only true if you have a copy of the user's encrypted private key. You've got that if you've confiscated his hard drive, but it doesn't go over the wire. The key itself is random. A keylogger bypasses the whole thing but so far nobody's accusing the NSA of hacking lots of domestic computers, and that would definitely do away with the excuse that "we didn't know he was in the U.S."
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > That's only true if you have a copy of the user's encrypted private key. it doesn't go over the wire. I know several people who have put all of their (strong) website passwords in a 1password/keepass/truecrypt file covered by a password that they can remember and type; and then put that on dropbox. Over the wire. I am assuming that this is compromised now. > nobody's accusing the NSA of hacking lots of domestic computers Except for here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-t... and http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how... > "we didn't know he was in the U.S." I am sitting in front of a domestic computer that is not in the US. The line about "but only for non-americans" is no reassurance whatsoever to the world.
etherael 13y ago
The annoying thing about this defeatist attitude is that people don't realise it's the same thing as being afraid of their massive resources being employed to purchase enormous kettle elements to boil the ocean. As a foreigner with an enormous distaste for the US government and a comfortable relationship with cryptography I say; good luck with that fascists, bring it on.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  I don't think that I personally have a "defeatist attitude". To guard yourself against someone with superior resources but no superpowers is possible, but you do have to be very careful. "cryptography" is not enough - but good cryptography with good passwords, and due care at the points where the decryption happens may be.
riquito 13y ago
All the computers in the world wouldn't be able to brute force the strongest crypto algorithms in far more than billions of years. Are you implying that the NSA has access to other planets?
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  No, but I am implying that your choice of crypto, your choice of passwords, and your security at the points where the decryption happens had all better be good. They have superior resources but no superpowers. You only have to make one mistake in order to be exposed.