Slashdot Mirror


News.com: Crypto Doesn't Kill - People Do

McSpew writes: "Bravo to News.com for telling the truth about cryptography. They even cited /.'s coverage of Phil Zimmerman's real views on PGP and its possible role in any terrorist acts." On a per-word basis, this may be the best summary of why calls to ban or restrict encryption technology (as with government key escrow, or constrained key sizes) has little to do with enhancing national or world security.

14 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. one-time pads by corebreech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A good article that could be made better by emphasizing the one-time pad cipher.

    The one-time pad is a very easy cipher to explain to lay people. They need no understanding of math, not even arithmetic.

    Anybody, anywhere can create a one-time pad by simply flipping a coin or rolling the dice, and use the resulting information to encrypt a message that is impervious to all manners of cryptoanalysis, even techniques made possible by the much-feared though yet-to-be-stocked quantum computer.

    In other words, you can create a encrypted message without encryption software or even a computer, and yet be assured that the message is unreadable by any computer devisable today or anytime in the future.

    There should be no debate here. Military-grade cryptography is available to anyone with a penny in their pocket and a sheet of paper and pencil.

    We need to stop wasting time talking about this.

    1. Re:one-time pads by AndrewHowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "each message contains in it the one time pad for the next message"
      This is not such a good idea. A one time pad is to be used once, and that means you certainly can't repeat it within a single message. Therefore, each message would have to contain a one time pad that was large enough to encrypt the whole of the next message, including the one time pad in that, and so on. Obviously this means your messages will get shorter and shorter!

    2. Re:one-time pads by Sly+Mongoose · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you have a secure channel to transfer the one-time pad why bother with encryption in the first place?
      Because you can exchange fat one-time pads when all the conspirators are crouched around a camel-dung fire one night. Then use the pad for secure communications over the weeks and months that follow.
      That pad must to somehow be secured like a codebook or it is useless.
      It is much more difficult to frisk every person on the street looking for a one-time pad than it is to CARNIVORE every e-mail on the backbone and peek through the backdoor.
      One-time pads is a wonderful theoretical idea but one that is useless in most real world applications.
      If secure communications are required and backdoors are a threat, the inconvenience will have to be tolerated.

  2. Central Asia tech support by 4thAce · · Score: 5, Funny
    No doubt there are any number of capable computer scientists in the Middle East and Central Asia whom these groups can turn to in a pinch for technical assistance.

    They could post their encryption concerns to a site http://slashdot.af/index.pl?section=askslashdot for instance. But I don't think the Taliban would let them call the intellectual currency "karma."

    --
    Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
  3. Crypto Kills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Re read that article, but swap every occurrence of "crypto" with "guns".

    Now you know what all the gun nuts were talking about.

    It's already been done wth handguns - I figured all guns were next, but looks like crypto is next.

  4. Re:Its too easy to circumvent restrictions by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, RSA isn't exactly a full cryptosystem by itself, but this does show how easy it is.

    To review the OpenPGP RFC prior to publication, I re-implemented PGP's decryption and signature checking operations working just from the spec. Admittedly I didn't write my own big integer library, but I did implement 3DES and SHA-1 myself.

    It took a week.

    And remember, most of that was getting the details of the protocol correct. (I spent a day just getting PKCS encoding right, for example. That's unfortunately not in the OpenPGP spec.) A terrorist who was not trying for inter-operability with PGP probably need not bother with that.


    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  5. Stop this mess ! by pricorde · · Score: 4, Funny

    The FBI has found hand-written order letters in the baggages of terrorists.
    Is this PGP ?
    NO !
    So why does the crypto=terrorist meme still continues ?
    Paradoxically, paper letters are a more secure way to transmit information than the internet...

    1. Re:Stop this mess ! by peppy · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems the terrorists didn't even bother to encrypt their emails either according to this article in the UK Guardian newspaper.

      "FBI investigators had been able to locate hundreds of email communications, sent 30 to 45 days before the attack....According to the FBI, the conspirators had not used encryption or concealment methods. Once found, the emails could be openly read."

  6. He's missed the point by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The security agencies are already checking through most or a statistical useful percentage of the bytes that flow over the US internet, and are characterising it all. Their actions only make sense if they are doing that.

    Anyone using encryption stands out; so they write a file on them.

    Where they find encrypted data they can't characterise it any further; so they hit a brick wall. But its not common right now, so they can make a file. However, if everyone on the internet routinely uses uncrackable encryption they can't build a file on everyone.

    On the other hand, if they have key escrow they can blow away the encryption on all the legitimate data and they are left with 'illegal' encryption; except presumably terrorists and other malcontents; a much smaller group that they can write files on.

    Of course this 'monitor all the traffic on the internet idea' falls down in several other ways. As an example, suppose somebody creates a Quake III server that has some sort of low bandwidth messaging in it perhaps the player steps left at careful timed moments or something, the characterisation by the NSA would be, oh its just another Quake player, when really its sending an encrypted message as well. [I just made that Quake idea up- its called 'steganography' in general, hiding encrypted messages in something else.]

    Anyway, that's really what's going on. The security agencies are using the WTC disaster as a chance to get their legislation through whilst the going is good. Of course anyone with any sense can evade it, but not every terrorist has sense.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:He's missed the point by rknop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, if they have key escrow they can blow away the encryption on all the legitimate data and they are left with 'illegal' encryption; except presumably terrorists and other malcontents; a much smaller group that they can write files on.

      You already note one good way of getting past this: stenography, hiding the message in something that looks legitimate. (Your low-bandwidth Quake motion idea was a good one.) There is another: nested encryption. Presumably, unless somebody is already suspected, the monitoring agencies aren't going to be allowed to read the contents of all of this mail and so forth without a warrant. (Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm being foolish, but bear with me.) As such, all they will be able to do is verify that the message is encrypted with a legal, escrow-available key.

      So somebody wanting to use illegal encryption encrypts their message with their own crypto, and then encryptes that ciphertext with legal crypto. It will pass the sniffer, but will still be unreadable if somebody gets a warrant and uses the escrowed key on the outer crypto. It won't do the statistical guys any good since their statistics pass will say that these people are using the legal crypto just like everybody else.

      As has been noted elsewhere, trying to put controls and limits on this sort of thing is completely quixotic. The only thing which is going to make people copy is a desire to be compliant with the laws. As such, the only people that the laws hinder and restrict are the law-abiding citiziens that (theoretically) the laws aren't directed at. There are two possible motivations for these laws: one, a real misunderstanding of how quixotic trying to regulate crypto would really be. Or, two, a much more sinister desire to get the mechanism in place to monitor every citizen. Choose which motivation you think is behind all of this based on your own level of paranoia and how cynical you are about how naive our leaders are vs. how sinister they are.

      -Rob

  7. Letters to congress people. by Crixus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One week ago today, I wrote essentially the same thing to my congress people. Here is my letter in case anyone else would like to send it to their congress critters:

    ------

    Honorable Senator xxxxxx,

    I am writing to bring to your attention the pointlessness of Senator Judd Gregg's new legislation mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products. I could make many arguments that discuss our civil liberties and the right to be secure within our papers and possessions, but that argument while true and immensely important, is not even required in this case.

    Simply put, with respect to strong cryptographic software, the "cat is out of the bag." The world is already full of good, secure cryptographic products with no backdoors. That is the case now, and was PRIOR to Congress' reduction of ITAR restrictions that kept us from exporting strong cryptographic products.

    The world is full of smart people many of whom do not work for the NSA, and do not live within the United States. These people in the civilian cryptographic world are constantly researching and developing new cryptographic techniques, which Senator Gregg's legislation WILL NOT AFFECT. No matter how many laws you pass, NOTHING will keep the BAD GUYS from being able to download this cryptographic software from European and other web sites.

    If Europe latches on to Senator Gregg's idea of mandating backdoors in all cryptographic products, then the people who want to use cryptographic products with no backdoors will simply write their own, or copy VERBATIM the computer source code for strong cryptographic software that already exists in many hundreds of published books.

    Allow me to quote Bruce Schneier, perhaps the United States' leading civilian cryptographic expert:

    "To illustrate the ease with which a cryptosystem can be implemented, I present the full code necessary for establishing a secure cryptographic channel over the internet, called the Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange. Both people communicating do the following:

    "1. Get public key (Y, P) of the other person. This is just a pair of large numbers.

    "2. Raise Y to the power of X, where X is the private key, modulo P. The result is the secret key.

    "Modular arithmetic is taught to fourth-graders under the name 'clock math,' and secret-key cryptosystems are just as easy to memorize and implement as public-key systems. I could teach any twelve-year-old how to reproduce from memory in under fifteen minutes a strong cryptosystem on any Windows machine. Any terrorist is quite capable of doing the same."

    This speaks volumes about the current state of cryptographic software in the world today, and the ease with which it can be implemented.

    If Senator Gregg's legislation is passed, it will have ZERO affect on the people who DO have things to hide from you, and will only harm the innocent citizens of the United States who wish nothing more than to insure that their banking records and private email conversations remain truly private.

    Regards,

    -----

    Rich...

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  8. Re:Sorry by ZigMonty · · Score: 4, Informative
    You can, but the numbers are very big. Even 40-bit keys can represent numbers up to 1099511627776. A 1024-bit key can represent an number like:
    • 179769313486231590772930519078902473361797697894 23 06572734300811577326758055009631327084773224075360 21120113879871393357658789768814416622492847430639 47412437776789342486548527630221960124609411945308 29520850057688381506823424628814739131105408272371 63350510684586298239947245938479716304835356329624

    • 224137216

    It's 309 digits long! As you can see the numbers are big and get exponentially bigger as the key size increases. The idea with public key encryption is that, while it is quite quick to multiply two numbers this size together, it is very hard to factor the result into the two parts again. It is possible but, for keys > about 56-bit, it is beyond what modern computers are capable of.

    Distributed.net is a SETI@home-like project to crack ever larger keys, among other things. Check them out.

  9. Close, but not quite.... by Deskpoet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Though I agree with everything you said, the fundamental problem goes a bit deeper than privacy.

    The full underlying cause of this is nationalism and the belief that the State is an almost divine entity that will protect you from all ills provided you play by its rules.

    History shows that this is a fool's bargain. Any state--and yes, flag-wavers, that includes the US--is *designed* to limit your freedoms for the "greater good". While this works for a great many people indoctrinated to accept the definitions the State provides for "freedom" and "democracy", it is not, nor has it ever been, a complete solution for people in the world, and *much* has been done in the name of the State--like much was done in the name of God before it--that is simply hateful and evil.

    Allegiance to the State, a belief that the State is all, that you should be proud to be part of the State, happened in Germany in the 1930s, and it appears to be happening here. Based on some of the troll posts here, you just have to substitute Arab for Jew, and you have the basic plank of the Nazi party flying in full colors.

    How does this relate to crypto? It doesn't really at all--that's the point. But, if we're really trying to make a connection, then there's the tenuous observation that crypto is math, and knows no allegiance to State, which has no allegiance to you, meaning that Crypto is like the State in that it is an abstract concept without any feeling or allegiance to anyone or anything. The major difference between Crypto and the State is that the State is established, has full access to social control mechanisms, and panders to people's senses of belonging while Crypto is simply math that individuals can use to keep pieces of themselves from the State and unto themselves.

    It is natural that the State--which *fully* seeks the totality of National Socialism, and now has the capacity to make _1984_ look like a Disneyland ride--would seek to abolish the one tool that can put an individual on equal footing with it. It's up to *us* to drop our allegiance to one abstract concept and rally our efforts around the other.

    I'll leave it up to you to decide which way the wind appears to be blowing.

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
  10. Crypto not common?? by alienmole · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Where they find encrypted data they can't characterise it any further; so they hit a brick wall. But its not common right now, so they can make a file. However, if everyone on the internet routinely uses uncrackable encryption they can't build a file on everyone.

    If I understand you correctly and you're saying that crypto isn't common right now, that's not true. Salespeople around the US have been selling Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to companies for a few years now, and these encrypt all traffic between a company's sites. While there almost certainly is still much more unencrypted traffic on the net than encrypted traffic, encrypted traffic is far too common for the government to be building a file on every instance they encounter.

    Many lawyers use encrypted email because of legal precedent which makes email less legally "privileged" than say a phone conversation.

    Then there are all the /. nerds using SSH to talk to their servers. Do you think the FBI or NSA has a file on Shoeboy?

    Everyday use of encryption is a lot more common than you might imagine.