Slashdot Mirror
Export-level Encryption Proves Insufficient
rossjudson writes: "The Independent is running an article about the shoe bomber terrorist. The interesting bit for Slashdot readers is at the bottom -- apparently the 40-bit encryption in the export version of Windows 2000 was cracked by a set of computers using a brute force method. So let's confront the question: Should the US prohibit the export of high-encryption software? Here is a case where the default values (40 bit) clearly helped recover valuable information from a system." There's another article in New Scientist focusing on the encryption issue.
If you really want to make the world a safer place, please demand that everyone wear helmets all of the time.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Advanced Math Textbook +
Computer +
Low-level programming skills =
High Grade Encryption... Anywhere in the world.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
40 bits is nothing, and has been for decades. /chosen/ to be crackable. And in my book, and in the minds of many others, that pretty much disqualifies it from even being called 'crypto'.
That limit was
THL.
Keeping
Should the US prohibit the export of high-encryption software?
Sure, why not? It isn't as if there are any cryptographers in any other countries in the world, is it?
Legislation is pointless, and even damaging in this case. The cryptography playing field is fairly level. That's not inherently a good or a bad thing; just as al-Queda can encrypt their files, they are equally prevented from intercepting sensitive information by the same technology. If legislation restricts crypto, we will find ourselves in a situation in which the FBI can't crack terrorist comms, yet terrorists can intercept commercial data. Airline security information, oilrig blueprints, whatever.
I thought the US annexed the UK with mtv and endless pop culture in the early 80's.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
128-bit Encryption Becomes the Default in Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 (SP2)
The Windows® 2000 operating system was the first Microsoft platform with 128-bit encryption to be shipped internationally after the United States government relaxed its export restrictions for strong encryption in early 2000. Microsoft has obtained the necessary approvals to ship Windows 2000 with strong encryption to all customers worldwide except U.S. embargoed destinations.
In fact, we should just make terrorism illegal, then people would stop. Because criminals follow the law, right?
Even though Osama was able to get a bunch of people into US flight schools, he surely wouldn't've been able to go to CompUSA, buy a copy of W2K off the shelf, and somehow get a 5 x 5 x 1/16" piece of plastic outside a country with roughly 10,000 miles of borders and 1500 international flights daily. Nope, no way that coulda happened.
Considering how much planning and communication had to take place for 9/11 to happen, we only have a video tape and a few files? Sounds like the low tech method works better for keeping things under raps. Is a computer isn't going to commit suicide if the FBI catches it (well I suppose you could boobie trap it). A terrorist on the otherhand can mislead, or commit suicide. The only thing weak encryption does is make businesses more vulnerable to government snooping and crackers. Plus the government can use things like a warrant to get access. Oh I forgot they hate having to ask judges for warrants and answering questions like "do you have sufficient proof or cause?"
If this guy was informed about cryptography (not necessarily knowledgable, but informed - sort of like having the equivalent of a financial planner for cryptography) he would've used one of a number of bolt on products to really secure his computer. Some of these products are commercial, others are open source. He may have more difficulty getting (and if he's properly informed - less trust in) the higher grade commercial packages but it'd still be doable. Fly to California, go to Fry's and buy it. If he goes for the source code route its just about impossible to police. You can get it anywhere in the world where there's an internet connection or a mail system (CD ROM or a package of floppies through the mail).
Saying that 40 bit encryption is an assistance to the CIA/FBI/NSA is only true if you rely on having stupid terrorists, in this case it was obviously true. Suppose they hired the equivalent of a director of IT though, who would come up with approved solutions. Life would become more difficult for the government. Whether the solutions that are proposed are legal or not doesn't matter. You're planning on blowing up aircraft, knocking down buildings and killing people. You won't even bat an eyelash at breaking encryption laws.
What low grade encryption really helps with is gathering data against ordinary citizens such as the guy who was a bit less than honest about his tax return.
Also, despite this low grade encryption the attack wasn't stopped. It's only after everybodies eyes were on this guy that his computer was examined and found to have low grade encryption.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
I've just read 50 posts saying that limiting export strength encryption won't stop any non-US people from using higher encryption. I agree that this makes perfect sense. It's completely logical.
But everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that this group DID rely on the export strength encryption that they had available. They DIDN'T use PGP or any one of the myriad of other options for better encryption. Perhaps the premise that a slashdot reader is familiar with other encryption techniques isn't equivalent to the premise that an Al-Qaida member will be familiar with other encryption techniques.
Any reasonable and complete argument against limiting export strength encryption at least needs to address this fact. One could argue that it is an unusual case, that it won't be repeated, that you don't care if non-US folks have default access to better encryption, etc.
But arguing that it will never stop anyone from using better techniques seems silly when presented with this case of a group using exactly the default abilities that they were given in Win2k.
Correct. 40-bit keys have no protective value. Remember the article about IBM's crypto chip being broken? (Somebody please provide the link to /. article, I can't at the moment.) In practice, they broke single DES, 56 bits worth of security in a good block cipher. In brute force.
It took at most 2 days with ~1000 $US worth of gear to find the key. Let's assume that they needed the full 48 hours to get that key broken. Simple math follows:
48 hours is 48*3600 seconds. It takes this much time to brute-force a 56-bit key. 40 bits is 1/(2^16) times the size of that, hence the time to break a 40-bit key with similar equipment is 48*3600/(2^16) seconds. This is no more than about 2.6 seconds.
To underline this as clearly as I can: 40-bit keys provide NO security. They may have provided some, at a time - but definetely not for some time now.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
The only real newsworthy bit I saw in it is that apparently the people who bought the laptop and then decrypted the disk are not govenrment operatives, but "just" people working for the Wall Street Journal. If anything, this says that moderate cryptography knowledge has become routine in corporate America.
When the NSA can uncover my deepest secrets, that's one thing. When a potential employer can decrypt anything protected with twenty year old technology, I don't worry yet, but talk to me again in my mid-40s. I wonder when some of the early posts to alt.anonymous.* will become decipherable.
A truly smart person probably wouldn't belive that terrorist action would accomplish their goals.
I fear that that thought process is what got us into this mess in the first place. We have always assumed that these terrorists were unorganized nutcases running around with bombs attached to themselves.
And then on 9/11 we found out how organized and intelligent they could be and how ignorant we were. The truth is that there are some scarily intelligent people in these terrorist organizations who are using religious ferver to control otherwise sane individuals.
"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril." - Sun Tzu. The Art of War
It used ot be that the French version was horribly cripled. Lotus folks actually compared it to sending mail on a postcard :-)
Anyway, it was done this way becaue th eFrench did NOT want the US Govt. to have an easier time decrypting the documens than did the French Govt. so they required a really poor encryption be used in Notes. Once the US Govt. dropped it's export restricitons the French Govt. lifted this requirement since this placed us all on a "level" playing field. One of the point revisions of R5 brought nearly all of the versions together except the French I THINK. Due to the extreme crippling they had to do the French may have had their own upgrade or have been forced to reissue certs and IDs - I'm fuzzy on this. I believe if you spend some time on the Notes site you'll find your answer.
On a plus note - Lotus has determined that 128 just isn't good enough. They mentioned plans to upgrade the crypto at Lotusphere last year but it probably won't be there till RNext goes gold. If there's one product out there that actually seems to care about security and was WAY ahead of the certificate thing it's Notes. And no, they aren't perfect...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
There I was, foaming at the mouth and ready to launch into a "how can you be so stupid?" diatribe. How can you keep encryption out of the hands of Bad People by denying it to Good People? In general terms, writing laws aimed at criminals is futile, because the criminals (by definition!) won't care about the law and will use whatever technology or methods they want. Nobody would be stupid or lazy or overconfident enough to use the lame default encryption on an export system, surely?
And then I read the article.
The al-Qa'ida machine was indeed running 40 bit encryption. It's hard to credit, but it really does appear that they simply were too stupid or too lazy or overconfident to upgrade the default lame-o-crypt settings. It's astonishing, especially compared to the planning that they put into September 11th, but there it is.
No, I don't think we should try and ban strong encryption. There are plenty of Good People who can make use of it (think Tibet), and any competent and determined Bad People can get it anyway. But these opponents just demonstrated clearly that while they were determined, they were not competent, and that changes my mind, just a litle.
I can see an argument for encouraging developers (Microsoft, MacOS and yes, Linux hackers) to supply 40 bit security by default on all consumer systems. Aunt Jemima doesn't need strong encryption, you and I probably don't need it. I wouldn't want strong encryption to be limited, but honest to god, I'd be flattered if anyone ever thought it was worth breaking even 40 bits worth on anything that I produced. I want the option to upgrade to be there, but I feel no particular need to use it, and here's the kicker: the less we kick up a fuss about it - and just quietly download the strong stuff ourselves without demanding that Aunt Jemina have it by default - the better.
I can't help but think that the more noise we make about the distinctions between low and high encryption, the more likely it is that even stupid, lazy, overconfident terrorists will perk up their ears and ask "Hey! Is this something we should be thinking about? Maybe we should send Achmed out to buy a copy of 'Security For Dummies'." Because they clearly are dummies, and I'm quite happy for them to stay that way, thanks all the same.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What the crypto regulations really do is prevent most people in the USA from adopting it. None of the three-letter agencies want everyone encrypting their E-mail or network traffic by default. That simply wouldn't do -- if everyone did it, how would they know who actually has something to hide? So they make it a pain in the ass for software developers to incorporate it into their software and they make it a pain in the ass for most users (Who don't know to go to international sites where you don't have to fill out a form to download the software) to get it.
The irony is that now they're bitching because the network is so insecure and how a cyber-attack could bring down public utilities and banks and things. Well they're just reaping what they've sown. The network would have tended to cryptographic authentication and tighter security except for the artificial and fundamentally useless restrictions the federal government has put in place.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Unfortunately, even computers will stop reading before they reach the end of the article, so you'd probably have some data loss.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"