8 ms·
The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order to mislead. The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bi
by skuhn 12y ago
The former NSA lawyer sort of has a point, but he is over simplifying in order to mislead.
The first option is to use provably broken cryptography, like 512-bit export grade RSA, that the government can just bust whenever they feel like it. Of course, so can pretty much anyone else, so this offers almost no protection.
The second option is to use secure cryptography, like 2048-bit RSA, that is thought to be difficult to bust in any reasonable timeframe. However, the government can compel you to hand over your private key, and they can then use that to decrypt whatever they want. An attacker could also steal the key and do the same thing.
The third option, which is what companies have begun to realize is the only method with actual security from criminals AND the government, is to transmit data without using a private key that they control. A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either. If they have done their job correctly, there is no way to compromise the data that doesn't include obtaining someone's phone. This third option is what the ex-NSA lawyer doesn't even want to include in the conversation, even though it is what everyone is up in arms about right now.
It's also worth stating that this does not offer some new revelation in privacy. If I had sent you a letter in 1885, someone would have to actually GET the letter to read it and know what I told you. A system like iMessage functions in the same way: to know what I wrote you, you have to obtain one of our phones. The NSA is just sad that they can no longer pluck the message from the air.
One final note: there are so many methods of communication on the Internet, and more launch every month, that I can't imagine how they could all be monitored. Terrorists could be communicating with voice chat on Everquest 2. They could be arranging plants in their Farmville gardens to spell out coded messages. It's an arms race, and I don't want my freedoms compromised by governments trying to win it.
- runeks 12y ago> A good example is iMessage's use of device keys for parties of a conversation, without the use of a central key that lives on Apple's servers. They cannot be compelled to turn over the master key, and no one can steal the key either. I'm not intimately familiar with the security of iMessage, but Apple controls the key server, as far as I understand. Can't law enforcement just compel Apple to make their key server respond with a public key owned by the NSA, instead of the public key of whichever device wants to receive the secret information?
- skuhn 12y agoYeah, that is my main worry about their strategy as well. A public key server and visibility into the keys selected for a conversation could solve this, but the usability cost would be gigantic. I think it's pretty tough to make something elegant and simple without centralization, but hopefully it will happen some day.