3 ms·
> force backdoors unlikely > they are legally bound to publicly lie about it source?
by andreyf 13y ago
> force backdoors
unlikely
> they are legally bound to publicly lie about it
source?
- StavrosK 13y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabota...
- andreyf 13y agoCan you be a little more specific? Also, re: that article, is there any evidence that there are exploits placed by NSA or GHCQ that could be used by other adversaries? I hear this claim a lot, but haven't seen any evidence...
- StavrosK 13y agoAs far as I know, you're obliged not to divulge the fact that you're cooperating, including saying that you aren't if you're asked, if that's what you've been doing so far. I don't think there's any evidence that someone has used an NSA backdoor, but, given how widespread exploits are, I wouldn't be surprised.
- rlx0x 13y agoNSA paid RSA 10 million US-Dollar to use Dual_EC_DRBG in their products, a standard they forced into the standard with lots of known problems, NIST did it anyways. So yeah they force backdoors. If you still think you need to defend the NSA, you are not stupid or naive. You are evil.
- StavrosK 13y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabotage-dead-mans-switch http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/09/nsa-sabota...