11 ms·

Government Announces Steps to Restore Confidence on Encryption Standards

222 points by misiti3780 13y ago

benologist 13y ago
The weird bit is the NYT did it on their own website instead of Ars. It's also super classy of Ars to cite a second report by the NYT then link to their own summary of that article too! http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?src=twrhp&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce...
- pdknsk 13y ago
  The original NYT article was submitted, but barely upvoted. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364340 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364340
- runn1ng 13y ago
  now the original link was changes to NYTimes anyway
- devx 13y ago
  Mike Masnick calls it a complete non-response from NIST, regarding the real issue/accusation: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/12371124473/nists-ridiculous-non-response-response-to-revelation-that-nsa-controlled-crypto-standards-process.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/12371124473/nists-...
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    When was Mike Masnick last happy about anything?
ReidZB 13y ago
When I saw 'new details' (edit: this was referring to an old title), I was hoping that the backdoor in Dual_EC_DRBG was either confirmed or denied ... in reality, there's not much new here. The NYT confirmed that their previous article was talking about Dual_EC_DRBG, but that's what everyone (edit: in the cryptography community) expected anyway [1]. We still don't know the exact story behind Dual_EC_DRBG. Maybe the NSA carefully crafted the DRBG to contain a backdoor that they knew from the outset. Maybe they didn't notice the backdoor until later (perhaps after cryptographers pointed it out) but ended up discovering the 'key' that allows you to predict the stream, completely breaking the DRBG (this is very unlikely, however). Or maybe they're no better off than the general public. Annoyingly, there are no concrete details. Internal memos "appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency". In the latest NYT article, the internal memos "suggest that the N.S.A. generated one of the random number generators used in a 2006 N.I.S.T. standard". (What "generated" really means here is beyond me; obviously the constants were generated somehow. The question is whether or not they were generated with malicious intent. Is the 'generated' part quoted/paraphrased from the memos?) Now I'm not saying that the NSA didn't have some malicious intent with Dual_EC_DRBG. But we have a stunning lack of any evidence. Internal memos 'appear to confirm' and 'suggest', but the bits provided from them are... lacking. Things certainly seem fishy, but we don't even know the context of the quotes. I don't know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if Dual_EC_DRBG was engineered to have a backdoor, but all of the articles I've read seem to carefully use weasel words when talking about it. [1] http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/10258/2454 http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/10258/2454
- nodata 13y ago
  > that's what everyone expected anyway This one sentence is a _remarkably easy way_ to kill a story for the 99.9% of the world who this is news for. "Everyone" indeed.
  - ReidZB 13y ago
    I suppose that was a bit presumptuous of me. My apologies. The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1], and Ars reported again on the matter about a week ago [2]. But I do acknowledge that doesn't necessarily mean much... not everyone has the time (or the inclination!) to follow such matters. [1] https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&sortby=points+desc&start=0 https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&s... [2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-make-crypto-worse-and-better/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-mak...
    - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
      "The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1]" If you look at this discussions, HN commenters were very skeptical this was an NSA backdoor. The speculative possibility isn't news; the fact very much is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434
      - ReidZB 13y ago
        That's the thing, though: this article doesn't say that the NSA did generate the Dual_EC_DRBG constants with a backdoor in mind. It just says that internal memos suggest and appear to confirm that they did. That is, the article isn't really anything new.
  - spunky 13y ago
    This is news to me.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
ck2 13y ago
With RC4 being used to mitigate beast, we need a solution soon for the web, because RC4 is falling apart http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/ http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/
- harshreality 13y ago
  Clients mitigate BEAST. RC4 is only a stopgap for ancient clients that don't have BEAST workarounds. There is a solution, TLS 1.1 and 1.2. Because of slow server-side adoption, clients will have to keep supporting TLS 1.0 for quite a while. Because clients can't drop support for TLS 1.0, there's no strong incentive for server administrators to ensure their servers support TLS 1.1 and 1.2.
akulbe 13y ago
Golf clap, anyone? Anyone? This is a huge confidence builder. Huge.
- jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
  Too little, too late. This is like a criminal promising he won't do it again, but only AFTER been caught and having the entire town surround him with pitchforks.
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  What this is, is basically an admission, isn't it? They've gone beyond denial to mitigation now.
mathogre 13y ago
It's too fucking late. Government, we don't trust you anymore. You're not a part of us. For once, I'm ashamed of being an American.
- detcader 13y ago
  Depends what you define as being "an American".. Glenn Greenwald, the main journalist publishing the leaks, asserts his US citizenship and his American identity as the ultimate impetus behind his acts -- his belief in the American Constitution and the rights of American citizens
  - rooshdi 13y ago
    American, Schmerican. What we have here is a group of nationalistic government-employed hominids enforcing their paranoia upon the rest of their species. Justice shouldn't wave flags.
  - joe_the_user 13y ago
    America's conscience. In exile in Brazil.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      Can you imagine the guy actually living in the USA? He would be annihilated by now.
      - laumars 13y ago
        That's hugely speculative. Just because his car's brakes might fail, it doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.
        noir_lord 13y ago
        Yes, the police said he fell down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets.
    - 13y ago
ipogios 13y ago
Emberassing for Johns Hopkins: “We’ll have to re-evaluate that relationship,” Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in a blog post Thursday. “Trust has been violated.” (Mr. Green said on Twitter Monday that Johns Hopkins asked him to remove that blog post. He was allowed to reinstate it hours later after the university realized the content was based on public news reports. The university later apologized.)
j_baker 13y ago
I suspect that NIST is just another government organization trying to do their jobs, and I don't think it's fair that their name got dragged through the mud. The truth is that the NSA practically co-opted NIST's decision-making strategy. I have confidence in NIST. Sadly, I don't have confidence in the NSA to not muddy up the process.
- icambron 13y ago
  I'm not sure you can separate those. If NIST is being systematically interfered with by the NSA, how can you have confidence in them?
  - atmosx 13y ago
    +1 I don't get it, don't they get paid at NIST? Do they have moral values and ethics? Or it's okay to say "Hey NSA pressed us really hard to backdoor you all. So yes we did it, but we didn't really want to", they are not judged for their initial intentions, they are judged for their wrongdoings. The NSA could say that (was said many times actually) the data retention in the end of the day is to protect America against terrorism. Problem is no one believes them.
    - j_baker 13y ago
      You seem to be assuming there's something NIST could have done about it. Based on what I've read, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like the NSA squeezed everyone else out so that they were the only ones calling the shots.
      - icambron 13y ago
        Apologies for turning to semantics, but I think the confusion is over what "confidence in" means. I think you mean something closer to "respect for". I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not well enough informed to argue the point. Generally, having confidence in something means that you think there's a high probability it will deliver good results, for whatever value "good results" has in that context (e.g. having confidence in a sports team is believing that they'll win). The purpose of NIST isn't to try to do the right thing, or to be competent, or any of that; it's to create good technologic standards. If you're skeptical that they can do that effectively job effectively, regardless of why, then you're not confident in them. To clarify all that, I'm not arguing your point as I now understand it; I'm just suggesting why you've found some opposition to it as you stated it.
frank_boyd 13y ago
You lost me at: "Government Announces Steps to Restore Confidence"
- gcatalfamo 13y ago
  It's morning here and I (not literally) spit my coffee reading those same words
- venomsnake 13y ago
  This is classic case of moving targets. There is what is politically feasible at any given moment and what is needed - when they do not overlap. The moment the needed becomes feasible the new thing needed to calm stuff down becomes politically impossible because the situation has worsened a lot. Typical case was the Euro crisis of 2009-2011. The USG is caught in weird position right now. The NSA story would have been easy to defuse in June with few bold steps. Now they seem inadequate. And we have a weak presidency and gridlocked congress. And the real fun is Putin just made the rift between them even bigger with a very good diplomatic move. So they cannot move together again to fix the NSA situation for a long time.
- skore 13y ago
  Trust is a fickle thing, but one thing that I have learned is that one vital element to building trust is to refrain from announcing your intention of doing so. Even having a "plan to build trust" is questionable - if you need to make such a plan, most likely you have already lost any chance of succeeding. People must build trust entirely by themselves. If they don't build it themselves, it's not trust. It's persuasion. And the willingness to be persuaded has been eliminated rather thoroughly, lately.
gcatalfamo 13y ago
NYT lost THIS much credibility together with the US govt altogether.
Zoomla 13y ago
under some secret order, they are thinking the oposite
rumcajz 13y ago
This is a procedural, not technical problem. It almost seems like the standardisation process open to everyone just enables everyone to insert their own backdoors into the standard. One interesting way to solve the problem would be to allow differenct mutually hostile entities to define their own standards (US, Russia, China, FSF, Pirate Bay, whoever) and then encrypt using all of them. That way, even if there is backdoor in each protocol, the only way to decrypt would be all those disparate players to cooperate. It would be like a vault with multiple keys possesed by different people.
- antocv 13y ago
  Thats an interesting concept, I wonder if Russia and China have their own standards/protocols to use? I guess we could get the same effect by encrypting using 3DES, then AES, then blowfish, twofish and then RC4.
  - conductor 13y ago
    OpenSSL supports these Russian GOST standards: * md_gost94 message digest algorithm * gost89 symmetric encryption algorithm with 256 bit key * gost94 public key algorithm with 1024 bit public key * gost94cp public key algorithm with 1024 bit public key (CP mode1) * gost2001 public key algorithm based on elliptic curves with 512 bit public key * gost2001cp public key algorithm based on elliptic curves with 512 bit public key (CP mode1)
    - antocv 13y ago
      Should I make a simple script to use gnutls to encrypt a file with AES then openssl using gost89, then 3des ?
      - rumcajz 13y ago
        Why not? Seems like fun.
  - conductor 13y ago
    > I guess we could get the same effect by encrypting using 3DES, then AES, then blowfish, twofish and then RC4. TrueCrypt supports cascaded encryption in XTS mode, see [0]. AES-Twofish-Serpent, combined with a decent password and Whirlpool hash algorithm (it is used for HMAC and for mixing the RNG) should be pretty secure, IMO. Anyhow, we don't have plenty of really good and checked publicly available alternatives for symmetric encryption. [0] http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/cascades http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/cascades
pyalot2 13y ago
Want to know how to get a secure encryption standard? Do not develop it with the government involved, especially not the US government.
- laumars 13y ago
  That doesn't ensure a lack of foul play. Even none government-employed developers could be turned into "agents" to insert code. Whether they're bought off or even just have strong patriotic motivations to begin with, you still need a stricter review process to ensure that no one country nor organisation has significant input nor control over the code.
  - pyalot2 13y ago
    That's true. But if you've not got a player on the table you're obliged to listen to because their vote overrides everybody elses, they can't shoot down things they don't like as easily.
m0nty 13y ago
The cynic in me says "of course they want us to trust their flawed encryption standards, otherwise there's no point back-dooring them in the first place." I suspect, however, that this has more to do with high-profile businesses complaining about the damage that's been done to them in the last few weeks.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
This got my heart beating. There is actual rebellion among academics, and a movement to restore trust in both people and tech. This is the NY Times quoting Matt Green of John Hopkins in the article: “I know from firsthand communications that a number of people at N.I.S.T. feel betrayed by their colleagues at the N.S.A.,” Mr. Green said in an interview Tuesday. Thats pretty strong sentiment. Seems to echo the bitterness of Rogaway: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/politics/surveillance.pdf http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/politics/surveillance.pdf This is an important question of our times, and the cryptography experts should speak up like this. They have the credibility, and the ear of the people and media.
- antocv 13y ago
  If I remember correctly back in beginning of 1990s there was a discussion in the US about preventing export of encryption protocols, then it was a discussion about making laws where a suspect is obliged to give up his/her key just like in the UK to agencies, and someone even mentioned making encryption unavailable or forbidden by law for civilians. All in the name of "we wont be able to catch criminals if we cant listen in on communications". Up to that point in time, encryption and secure communications was reserved for agencies and those in power, it was not for the plebians. See for example how it went for PGP. I guess a route that US agencies took is to "we will recommend good standards for you, because you know we also need security, but you shouldnt know all those standards and implementations will be compromised so we still retain the ability to spy on you while you wont be able to spy on us and if you do then you're a traitor".
  - lotsofcows 13y ago
    The export related discussion you remember was the _end_ of that programme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...
- s_q_b 13y ago
  “I know from firsthand communications that a number of people at N.I.S.T. feel betrayed by their colleagues at the N.S.A.,” Mr. Green said in an interview Tuesday. That's the understatement of the century. NIST is pissed off. Many of these guys move fluidly back and forth from NSA, and clearly they were kept in the dark.
alan_cx 13y ago
Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That has to be right and good for all. Even this anarchist accepts this. Such a situation is fine for "us", and great for government, in that it means they them selves can communicate with confidence. But to expect government to accept a situation where there is zero way they can snoop or investigate is asking a lot. Its a huge risk to government. So, I think we have to forget that idea completely, as attractive as it is to the likes of me. As others have said, its procedural or legal, not technical. What is needed is a rock solid frame work and set of rules that properly limit how the snooping is done. What is needed is a universal bill of online or electronic rights. Not just for the USA, but something that can apply to any country and government. I'd suggest it should be developed by an international group, UN backed, and made part of being a member. Or could it be something that has to be agreed to as part of acquiring IP addresses or domain names. Dunno, but tie it in some how. Ok, I'm not sure that works totally as I have set it out, Im no lawyer, and others may well want to modify it, but we need something international as the internet is international. We all need protection, not just Americans. We need a base level to work from. Something we can all accept as reasonable, workable and enforceable. Most of all, we need confidence in using communications and those regulating it.
- adsr 13y ago
  Why not use ISO, they are doing a fine job on the C standard without the help of NIST.
- andrewljohnson 13y ago
  "How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget international committees. Smash the hard drives with my phone data in them that spooks can read at will.
RamiK 13y ago
Every standards body that is even remotely financed by governments or companies is a lie. (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm...) Committees rulings are a lie. (http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm) Even the most seemingly reasonable regulations are a lie. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946 http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375...) The sooner people realize there's no other option other than a direct democracy since governments and companies are untrustworthy, the better.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  Who gets to vote in a direct democracy? My parents don't know anything cryptography, and are likely to base their decision on others, or even worse, a news source. Right there, our parents outnumber us 2:1. Why should I trust the rest of America, who largely gets their information from media companies designed to optimize for ratings, on matters pertaining to cryptography?
  - hjnilsson 13y ago
    Indeed, it would not be long before the press makes the case that 0% tax for media would be awesome for everybody. "There would be no commercials!", "Think of the children, we can make quality programs with more cash!" etc. etc. Direct democracy is not a solution. The solution is the thing we're doing now. The system works in the sense that we're righting it by having this kerfuffle about the secrecy. And something will change, and then the issue will be forgotten for awhile and the story will repeat.
gesman 13y ago
That's putting the cart before the horse. The first step would be for Government to Announce Steps to Restore Confidence in Government.
forgotAgain 13y ago
What big eyes you have grandma.
raheemm 13y ago
I hate all this NSA spying but they do have a point - if they cant read the communications of the bad guys, how are they supposed to catch them before it's too late. Isn't there a way to accomplish both objectives of security and preserving constitutional freedoms?
- noir_lord 13y ago
  Yes but it relies on an informed electorate holding mostly honest elected officials to account while said officials hold the tools of state to account. In other words no.
  - raheemm 13y ago
    The justice dept caught a bunch of mafiosos without violating the rights of everyone else. Why? Because judges oversaw the handing out of search and wire-tapping warrants. A balance was found between security and liberty. Unfortunately, what is happening now is that we are lead to believe it is one or the other. And it's made worse when the debate gets trapped in the "right vs left", "conservative vs liberal" context. Seems to me that the judicial system needs to get more involved in this. Congressional oversight of NSA, TSA, DOD, etc has not really worked. There is also a role for technology to play. Out of millions of calls, billions of emails, how do you flag that one bad guy? The implicit assumption in such a problem is that you collect the data on everyone so that you can look for patterns of bad guy behavior. But is there another way?
ianstallings 13y ago
Sign up now for the official Dog and Pony Show: Restoring Confidence To Our Dogs and Ponies.
snarfy 13y ago
> ... N.I.S.T. is also required by statute to consult with the N.S.A.” That statute needs to be removed.
quizzas 13y ago
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" People honestly believe the government can be fully transparent ? The way they set up the FISA court is a clear indicator of its intentions from the get go.
mcguire 13y ago
"N.I.S.T. attributed the allegations to confusion and noted that it was required, by statute, to consult with the N.S.A." I think they'll find it is difficult to "restore confidence" if they are required to "consult" with those responsible for the lack of confidence. At least, I hope so. Whitewash and time are marvelous.
notatoad 13y ago
Does the government plan to announce steps to restore confidence in the government? because at this point, that's more important to me than their plan for anything else.
tripzilch 13y ago
NIST should break ties with the NSA. That's probably not possible/going to happen but that's what would happen with any other organisation severely breaching confidence like this. Those are, however, the sort of big actions they need to show to have a chance at regaining trust.
ilaksh 13y ago
This seems to prove that NIST and similar institutions and their standards should not be trusted or taken seriously in regards to security if that is your primary concern. Anyway anything standardized is going to be relatively well known and therefore more likely to have existing exploits. But these institutions have proven that they should not be trusted and no amount of PR should change that for prudent individuals or companies.

222 points by misiti3780 13y ago

The weird bit is the NYT did it on their own website instead of Ars. It's also super classy of Ars to cite a second report by the NYT then link to their own summary of that article too! http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announces-steps-to-restore-confidence-on-encryption-standards/?src=twrhp&_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce...

pdknsk 13y ago
The original NYT article was submitted, but barely upvoted. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364340 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6364340
runn1ng 13y ago
now the original link was changes to NYTimes anyway
devx 13y ago
Mike Masnick calls it a complete non-response from NIST, regarding the real issue/accusation: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/12371124473/nists-ridiculous-non-response-response-to-revelation-that-nsa-controlled-crypto-standards-process.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/12371124473/nists-...
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  When was Mike Masnick last happy about anything?

ReidZB 13y ago

When I saw 'new details' (edit: this was referring to an old title), I was hoping that the backdoor in Dual_EC_DRBG was either confirmed or denied ... in reality, there's not much new here. The NYT confirmed that their previous article was talking about Dual_EC_DRBG, but that's what everyone (edit: in the cryptography community) expected anyway [1]. We still don't know the exact story behind Dual_EC_DRBG. Maybe the NSA carefully crafted the DRBG to contain a backdoor that they knew from the outset. Maybe they didn't notice the backdoor until later (perhaps after cryptographers pointed it out) but ended up discovering the 'key' that allows you to predict the stream, completely breaking the DRBG (this is very unlikely, however). Or maybe they're no better off than the general public. Annoyingly, there are no concrete details. Internal memos "appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency". In the latest NYT article, the internal memos "suggest that the N.S.A. generated one of the random number generators used in a 2006 N.I.S.T. standard". (What "generated" really means here is beyond me; obviously the constants were generated somehow. The question is whether or not they were generated with malicious intent. Is the 'generated' part quoted/paraphrased from the memos?) Now I'm not saying that the NSA didn't have some malicious intent with Dual_EC_DRBG. But we have a stunning lack of any evidence. Internal memos 'appear to confirm' and 'suggest', but the bits provided from them are... lacking. Things certainly seem fishy, but we don't even know the context of the quotes. I don't know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if Dual_EC_DRBG was engineered to have a backdoor, but all of the articles I've read seem to carefully use weasel words when talking about it. [1] http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/10258/2454 http://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/10258/2454

nodata 13y ago
> that's what everyone expected anyway This one sentence is a _remarkably easy way_ to kill a story for the 99.9% of the world who this is news for. "Everyone" indeed.
- ReidZB 13y ago
  I suppose that was a bit presumptuous of me. My apologies. The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1], and Ars reported again on the matter about a week ago [2]. But I do acknowledge that doesn't necessarily mean much... not everyone has the time (or the inclination!) to follow such matters. [1] https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&sortby=points+desc&start=0 https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=dual_ec_drbg&s... [2] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-make-crypto-worse-and-better/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-mak...
  - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
    "The whole spiel has made several rounds on HN, though [1]" If you look at this discussions, HN commenters were very skeptical this was an NSA backdoor. The speculative possibility isn't news; the fact very much is. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4580434
    - ReidZB 13y ago
      That's the thing, though: this article doesn't say that the NSA did generate the Dual_EC_DRBG constants with a backdoor in mind. It just says that internal memos suggest and appear to confirm that they did. That is, the article isn't really anything new.
- spunky 13y ago
  This is news to me.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago

ck2 13y ago

With RC4 being used to mitigate beast, we need a solution soon for the web, because RC4 is falling apart http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/ http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/tls/

harshreality 13y ago
Clients mitigate BEAST. RC4 is only a stopgap for ancient clients that don't have BEAST workarounds. There is a solution, TLS 1.1 and 1.2. Because of slow server-side adoption, clients will have to keep supporting TLS 1.0 for quite a while. Because clients can't drop support for TLS 1.0, there's no strong incentive for server administrators to ensure their servers support TLS 1.1 and 1.2.

akulbe 13y ago

Golf clap, anyone? Anyone? This is a huge confidence builder. Huge.

jayfuerstenberg 13y ago
Too little, too late. This is like a criminal promising he won't do it again, but only AFTER been caught and having the entire town surround him with pitchforks.
dalek_cannes 13y ago
What this is, is basically an admission, isn't it? They've gone beyond denial to mitigation now.

mathogre 13y ago

It's too fucking late. Government, we don't trust you anymore. You're not a part of us. For once, I'm ashamed of being an American.

detcader 13y ago
Depends what you define as being "an American".. Glenn Greenwald, the main journalist publishing the leaks, asserts his US citizenship and his American identity as the ultimate impetus behind his acts -- his belief in the American Constitution and the rights of American citizens
- rooshdi 13y ago
  American, Schmerican. What we have here is a group of nationalistic government-employed hominids enforcing their paranoia upon the rest of their species. Justice shouldn't wave flags.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  America's conscience. In exile in Brazil.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Can you imagine the guy actually living in the USA? He would be annihilated by now.
    - laumars 13y ago
      That's hugely speculative. Just because his car's brakes might fail, it doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.
      - noir_lord 13y ago
        Yes, the police said he fell down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets.
  - 13y ago

ipogios 13y ago

Emberassing for Johns Hopkins: “We’ll have to re-evaluate that relationship,” Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in a blog post Thursday. “Trust has been violated.” (Mr. Green said on Twitter Monday that Johns Hopkins asked him to remove that blog post. He was allowed to reinstate it hours later after the university realized the content was based on public news reports. The university later apologized.)

j_baker 13y ago

I suspect that NIST is just another government organization trying to do their jobs, and I don't think it's fair that their name got dragged through the mud. The truth is that the NSA practically co-opted NIST's decision-making strategy. I have confidence in NIST. Sadly, I don't have confidence in the NSA to not muddy up the process.

icambron 13y ago
I'm not sure you can separate those. If NIST is being systematically interfered with by the NSA, how can you have confidence in them?
- atmosx 13y ago
  +1 I don't get it, don't they get paid at NIST? Do they have moral values and ethics? Or it's okay to say "Hey NSA pressed us really hard to backdoor you all. So yes we did it, but we didn't really want to", they are not judged for their initial intentions, they are judged for their wrongdoings. The NSA could say that (was said many times actually) the data retention in the end of the day is to protect America against terrorism. Problem is no one believes them.
  - j_baker 13y ago
    You seem to be assuming there's something NIST could have done about it. Based on what I've read, that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like the NSA squeezed everyone else out so that they were the only ones calling the shots.
    - icambron 13y ago
      Apologies for turning to semantics, but I think the confusion is over what "confidence in" means. I think you mean something closer to "respect for". I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not well enough informed to argue the point. Generally, having confidence in something means that you think there's a high probability it will deliver good results, for whatever value "good results" has in that context (e.g. having confidence in a sports team is believing that they'll win). The purpose of NIST isn't to try to do the right thing, or to be competent, or any of that; it's to create good technologic standards. If you're skeptical that they can do that effectively job effectively, regardless of why, then you're not confident in them. To clarify all that, I'm not arguing your point as I now understand it; I'm just suggesting why you've found some opposition to it as you stated it.

frank_boyd 13y ago

You lost me at: "Government Announces Steps to Restore Confidence"

gcatalfamo 13y ago
It's morning here and I (not literally) spit my coffee reading those same words
venomsnake 13y ago
This is classic case of moving targets. There is what is politically feasible at any given moment and what is needed - when they do not overlap. The moment the needed becomes feasible the new thing needed to calm stuff down becomes politically impossible because the situation has worsened a lot. Typical case was the Euro crisis of 2009-2011. The USG is caught in weird position right now. The NSA story would have been easy to defuse in June with few bold steps. Now they seem inadequate. And we have a weak presidency and gridlocked congress. And the real fun is Putin just made the rift between them even bigger with a very good diplomatic move. So they cannot move together again to fix the NSA situation for a long time.
skore 13y ago
Trust is a fickle thing, but one thing that I have learned is that one vital element to building trust is to refrain from announcing your intention of doing so. Even having a "plan to build trust" is questionable - if you need to make such a plan, most likely you have already lost any chance of succeeding. People must build trust entirely by themselves. If they don't build it themselves, it's not trust. It's persuasion. And the willingness to be persuaded has been eliminated rather thoroughly, lately.

gcatalfamo 13y ago

NYT lost THIS much credibility together with the US govt altogether.

Zoomla 13y ago

under some secret order, they are thinking the oposite

rumcajz 13y ago

This is a procedural, not technical problem. It almost seems like the standardisation process open to everyone just enables everyone to insert their own backdoors into the standard. One interesting way to solve the problem would be to allow differenct mutually hostile entities to define their own standards (US, Russia, China, FSF, Pirate Bay, whoever) and then encrypt using all of them. That way, even if there is backdoor in each protocol, the only way to decrypt would be all those disparate players to cooperate. It would be like a vault with multiple keys possesed by different people.

antocv 13y ago
Thats an interesting concept, I wonder if Russia and China have their own standards/protocols to use? I guess we could get the same effect by encrypting using 3DES, then AES, then blowfish, twofish and then RC4.
- conductor 13y ago
  OpenSSL supports these Russian GOST standards: * md_gost94 message digest algorithm * gost89 symmetric encryption algorithm with 256 bit key * gost94 public key algorithm with 1024 bit public key * gost94cp public key algorithm with 1024 bit public key (CP mode1) * gost2001 public key algorithm based on elliptic curves with 512 bit public key * gost2001cp public key algorithm based on elliptic curves with 512 bit public key (CP mode1)
  - antocv 13y ago
    Should I make a simple script to use gnutls to encrypt a file with AES then openssl using gost89, then 3des ?
    - rumcajz 13y ago
      Why not? Seems like fun.
- conductor 13y ago
  > I guess we could get the same effect by encrypting using 3DES, then AES, then blowfish, twofish and then RC4. TrueCrypt supports cascaded encryption in XTS mode, see [0]. AES-Twofish-Serpent, combined with a decent password and Whirlpool hash algorithm (it is used for HMAC and for mixing the RNG) should be pretty secure, IMO. Anyhow, we don't have plenty of really good and checked publicly available alternatives for symmetric encryption. [0] http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/cascades http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/cascades

pyalot2 13y ago

Want to know how to get a secure encryption standard? Do not develop it with the government involved, especially not the US government.

laumars 13y ago
That doesn't ensure a lack of foul play. Even none government-employed developers could be turned into "agents" to insert code. Whether they're bought off or even just have strong patriotic motivations to begin with, you still need a stricter review process to ensure that no one country nor organisation has significant input nor control over the code.
- pyalot2 13y ago
  That's true. But if you've not got a player on the table you're obliged to listen to because their vote overrides everybody elses, they can't shoot down things they don't like as easily.

m0nty 13y ago

The cynic in me says "of course they want us to trust their flawed encryption standards, otherwise there's no point back-dooring them in the first place." I suspect, however, that this has more to do with high-profile businesses complaining about the damage that's been done to them in the last few weeks.

andrewljohnson 13y ago

This got my heart beating. There is actual rebellion among academics, and a movement to restore trust in both people and tech. This is the NY Times quoting Matt Green of John Hopkins in the article: “I know from firsthand communications that a number of people at N.I.S.T. feel betrayed by their colleagues at the N.S.A.,” Mr. Green said in an interview Tuesday. Thats pretty strong sentiment. Seems to echo the bitterness of Rogaway: http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/politics/surveillance.pdf http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/politics/surveillance.pdf This is an important question of our times, and the cryptography experts should speak up like this. They have the credibility, and the ear of the people and media.

antocv 13y ago
If I remember correctly back in beginning of 1990s there was a discussion in the US about preventing export of encryption protocols, then it was a discussion about making laws where a suspect is obliged to give up his/her key just like in the UK to agencies, and someone even mentioned making encryption unavailable or forbidden by law for civilians. All in the name of "we wont be able to catch criminals if we cant listen in on communications". Up to that point in time, encryption and secure communications was reserved for agencies and those in power, it was not for the plebians. See for example how it went for PGP. I guess a route that US agencies took is to "we will recommend good standards for you, because you know we also need security, but you shouldnt know all those standards and implementations will be compromised so we still retain the ability to spy on you while you wont be able to spy on us and if you do then you're a traitor".
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  The export related discussion you remember was the _end_ of that programme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...
s_q_b 13y ago
“I know from firsthand communications that a number of people at N.I.S.T. feel betrayed by their colleagues at the N.S.A.,” Mr. Green said in an interview Tuesday. That's the understatement of the century. NIST is pissed off. Many of these guys move fluidly back and forth from NSA, and clearly they were kept in the dark.

alan_cx 13y ago

Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That has to be right and good for all. Even this anarchist accepts this. Such a situation is fine for "us", and great for government, in that it means they them selves can communicate with confidence. But to expect government to accept a situation where there is zero way they can snoop or investigate is asking a lot. Its a huge risk to government. So, I think we have to forget that idea completely, as attractive as it is to the likes of me. As others have said, its procedural or legal, not technical. What is needed is a rock solid frame work and set of rules that properly limit how the snooping is done. What is needed is a universal bill of online or electronic rights. Not just for the USA, but something that can apply to any country and government. I'd suggest it should be developed by an international group, UN backed, and made part of being a member. Or could it be something that has to be agreed to as part of acquiring IP addresses or domain names. Dunno, but tie it in some how. Ok, I'm not sure that works totally as I have set it out, Im no lawyer, and others may well want to modify it, but we need something international as the internet is international. We all need protection, not just Americans. We need a base level to work from. Something we can all accept as reasonable, workable and enforceable. Most of all, we need confidence in using communications and those regulating it.

adsr 13y ago
Why not use ISO, they are doing a fine job on the C standard without the help of NIST.
andrewljohnson 13y ago
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget international committees. Smash the hard drives with my phone data in them that spooks can read at will.

RamiK 13y ago

Every standards body that is even remotely financed by governments or companies is a lie. (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm...) Committees rulings are a lie. (http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm) Even the most seemingly reasonable regulations are a lie. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375760946 http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Drug-Companies/dp/0375...) The sooner people realize there's no other option other than a direct democracy since governments and companies are untrustworthy, the better.

nemothekid 13y ago
Who gets to vote in a direct democracy? My parents don't know anything cryptography, and are likely to base their decision on others, or even worse, a news source. Right there, our parents outnumber us 2:1. Why should I trust the rest of America, who largely gets their information from media companies designed to optimize for ratings, on matters pertaining to cryptography?
- hjnilsson 13y ago
  Indeed, it would not be long before the press makes the case that 0% tax for media would be awesome for everybody. "There would be no commercials!", "Think of the children, we can make quality programs with more cash!" etc. etc. Direct democracy is not a solution. The solution is the thing we're doing now. The system works in the sense that we're righting it by having this kerfuffle about the secrecy. And something will change, and then the issue will be forgotten for awhile and the story will repeat.

gesman 13y ago

That's putting the cart before the horse. The first step would be for Government to Announce Steps to Restore Confidence in Government.

forgotAgain 13y ago

What big eyes you have grandma.

raheemm 13y ago

I hate all this NSA spying but they do have a point - if they cant read the communications of the bad guys, how are they supposed to catch them before it's too late. Isn't there a way to accomplish both objectives of security and preserving constitutional freedoms?

noir_lord 13y ago
Yes but it relies on an informed electorate holding mostly honest elected officials to account while said officials hold the tools of state to account. In other words no.
- raheemm 13y ago
  The justice dept caught a bunch of mafiosos without violating the rights of everyone else. Why? Because judges oversaw the handing out of search and wire-tapping warrants. A balance was found between security and liberty. Unfortunately, what is happening now is that we are lead to believe it is one or the other. And it's made worse when the debate gets trapped in the "right vs left", "conservative vs liberal" context. Seems to me that the judicial system needs to get more involved in this. Congressional oversight of NSA, TSA, DOD, etc has not really worked. There is also a role for technology to play. Out of millions of calls, billions of emails, how do you flag that one bad guy? The implicit assumption in such a problem is that you collect the data on everyone so that you can look for patterns of bad guy behavior. But is there another way?

ianstallings 13y ago

snarfy 13y ago

> ... N.I.S.T. is also required by statute to consult with the N.S.A.” That statute needs to be removed.

quizzas 13y ago

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" People honestly believe the government can be fully transparent ? The way they set up the FISA court is a clear indicator of its intentions from the get go.

mcguire 13y ago

"N.I.S.T. attributed the allegations to confusion and noted that it was required, by statute, to consult with the N.S.A." I think they'll find it is difficult to "restore confidence" if they are required to "consult" with those responsible for the lack of confidence. At least, I hope so. Whitewash and time are marvelous.

notatoad 13y ago

Does the government plan to announce steps to restore confidence in the government? because at this point, that's more important to me than their plan for anything else.

tripzilch 13y ago

NIST should break ties with the NSA. That's probably not possible/going to happen but that's what would happen with any other organisation severely breaching confidence like this. Those are, however, the sort of big actions they need to show to have a chance at regaining trust.

ilaksh 13y ago

This seems to prove that NIST and similar institutions and their standards should not be trusted or taken seriously in regards to security if that is your primary concern. Anyway anything standardized is going to be relatively well known and therefore more likely to have existing exploits. But these institutions have proven that they should not be trusted and no amount of PR should change that for prudent individuals or companies.