Slashdot Mirror


NSA Approves First 802.11b Product for Secret Data

joehoya writes "I realize this is a couple of days old, but the National Security Agency recently certified the Harris Corp's Secnet-11 as the first 802.11b system permitted to carry US SECRET level data. See press release. The system integrates NSA crypto with commercial chipset based 802.11b PCMCIA cards and access points to create a secure wireless LAN. Unfortunately, you and I won't be able to buy them, as they are only available to organizations with an NSA COMSEC account."

40 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. How is this unfortunate? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's already possible to "leverage" "existing technologies" in order to do secure communications using "commodity hardware".

    Or, in English (and not marketdroidspeak) you can have perfectly secure communications over existing 802.11 as long as you encrypt at the protocol level rather than the hardware (link? I need to study my OSI seven layer network burrito) level. So why do we care about this anyway?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:How is this unfortunate? by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Funny

      You used perfectly and secure in the same sentence. That is all the proof needed to show that you do not know what you are talking about.

    2. Re:How is this unfortunate? by Cadre · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I have a question that's related: how do I make sure that nobody unauthorized is connected to my network?

      IPsec

      --
      All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  2. Make NSA crypto Open Source! by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it would be best for national security if we made the NSA crypto algorithm Open Source. The military could benefit greatly from the vast experience and dedication of the Open Source developer community. With their steadfastness, courage, and discipline they could be a great aid in these of needs where we face numerous international threats.

    Only when we harness the power available in the Open Source developer community can be achieve fully secure e-mail communications.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
    1. Re:Make NSA crypto Open Source! by joe_bruin · · Score: 3, Informative

      well, the nsa not too long ago standardized on an open source, patent free digital encryption algorithm for their 'advanced encryption system' (aes), to be used in many forthcoming applications, and replace the aging 'data encryption system' (des). the algorithm they've chosen is called rijndael. here is the source for one implementation.

      is this kind of like what you were asking for?

    2. Re:Make NSA crypto Open Source! by istartedi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's say that the quality of the code is roughly proportional to QN, where N is the number of developers and Q is the quality of each developer.

      The alleged value of Open Source is that it allows you to increase the value of N by a dramatic number. Even if the developers are merely average, you can get a higher QN with Open Source than with closed source for many projects.

      Of course, if the number of half-finished projects on Sourceforge is any indicator, simply opening up is not enough. You have to have some appeal to developers or you aren't going to raise your N much.

      Then of course there is the other factor, Q. Even if you have something really cool, there is no gaurantee that those interested will be any better than average, and you will also have to expend some effort "managing" those who are below average or who are just plain crackpots.

      Something tells me that the NSA has no trouble attracting developers with a very high "Q" and in sufficient "N" to do an excellent job.

      Yes, I know about the "mythical man month" and that you can't just add up developers as I've suggested. That's why this is just an approximation.

      Frankly, I think your post borders on Trollish because you've got "only" and "fully secure" in there; but there are probably plenty of people on /. who will eat up your post, just as there are plenty of people who think that obscurity==security. Of course neither side is right; Open Source isn't a panacea, but giving up obsccurity isn't always such a bright idea either.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Make NSA crypto Open Source! by khafre · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a declassified crypto algorithm, designed by the NSA, and available to you. It's Type 2 (good for sensitive but unclassified) called Skipjack. Available here.

  3. Public or private key? by thirty-seven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wasn't able to find this in the press release. Does anyone know if the encryption algorithm would be public key based, or would it be DEC or something like that?

    --

    Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    1. Re:Public or private key? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called "Baton" and it was developed by the NSA, the details of the algorithm are Top Secret/Propreitary. It's a Type-1 encryption algorithm, the kind that can be used to encrypt Secret/Top-Secret information, for example, on SIPRNET. Harris/Intersil was licensed to create a security module that implements the algorithm.

      Baton is a symmetric key cypher, by the way. I read somewhere it's a 160 or 320-bit key and of course it has various chaining modes. So it's definitely strong. It uses the SHA-1 hash in the protocol too.

      --
      THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  4. Correction: by dj28 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That should be nsa.GOV, not nsa.MIL.

  5. /me hopes this will make it out to the market by EvilOpie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope that at some point technology like this makes it out to the hands of the average consumer. It's good to see that at least someone is trying to make wireless access more secure. It would be nice to be able to pick up a secure wireless product at some point, and use it out of the box without worries of it being insecure.

    But until then, there's always VPN or SSH tunnels. And as an added bonus, you can impliment SSH tunnels for free. (even for web and other traffic... not just SSH data)

    --
    -Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!
  6. Proprietary crypto is lame by BalkanBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... Bruce Schneier has said this over and over again - it will be a cold day in hell before a proprietary cryptographic algorithm is going to be nearly as scrutinized as a publically available one. I don't see that the algorithm the NSA's using has been disclosed (in the article), and I doubt it will be. Granted, the NSA has probably more cryptographers on staff than anyone else, but that is no guarantee for the quality of the algorithm they are using. This way they may be potentially running on borrowed time until someone figures out a way to attack it...

    --
    'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
    1. Re:Proprietary crypto is lame by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Funny
      If the NSA opened their crypto to the public, we'd all see that they're just using PGP like everyone else. By keeping what they use a secret, they keep us guessing if they've cracked what we're using.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:Proprietary crypto is lame by photon317 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, the NSA is somewhat of an exception to this rule. It is widely known that they are the largest employer of mathemeticians worldwide, compared to any other governmental or private organization, including universities. Therefore, widespread solid peer-review of cryptography can actually happen *inside* the NSA without making anything public to the outside world and they would still get decent results. Add on that the NSA's cryptographers and mathematicians tend to be about a decade ahead of the public/academic world, and it all adds up to the NSA not needing to follow the conventional cryptography peer review mantra.

      --
      11*43+456^2
  7. Let's start the pool now.... by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 5, Funny
    How long 'till:
    • One of them gets detected with a pringles can across the street from an NSA office
    • That same cantenna manages to sniff enough packets to crack the keys
    My money is on Friday, November 22, 2002
    --
  8. Re:dnetc by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, unless military satellites are dropping film canisters or tethered with fiber optic cables, I think it's farily safe to conclude that classified data is already being transmitted through your person at this moment.

  9. But it only works with Windows.......... by jcrb · · Score: 5, Interesting


    who is fooling who here? None of the OSes (only Windows versions) it works with are certified for TOP SECRET data.... guess its pretty useless till someone does the linux port eh? :)

    --
    -jon
    1. Re:But it only works with Windows.......... by Hal_9000@!!!@ · · Score: 5, Informative

      None of the OSes (only Windows versions) it works with are certified for TOP SECRET data

      Yeah, and Trusted Solaris, and Trusted Irix, and a bunch of other OSs you've probably never head of. Look at this if you don't believe me.

      --
      My email is real.
  10. speak for yourself by tps12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you and I won't be able to buy them

    While you're correct that most citizens (including Slashdot editors, I'd guess!) won't be able to buy these babies, please remember that a large portion of Slashdot's readership is in IT, some of us in positions where we may, in fact, purchase equipment through an NSA COMSEC account. Industries and corporations deemed "essential to the National Security" under conditions set forth in the NPHG Protection Act have been given this priveledge since its passage in 1973, in response to the Viet-nam War. I work at a major corn distributor (food being an essential supply during potential siege or embargo, and breakfast being the most important meal of the day), and I can tell you that I hope to have my hands on these sometime this month, before Christmas or President's Day at the very most. It should speed up our processes considerably to not have to be tied to "wired" networks. It's a fun time to be in IT, and this cloak-and-dagger stuff just makes it better.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:speak for yourself by treat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It should speed up our processes considerably to not have to be tied to "wired" networks.

      Then why didn't you just run ipsec over conventional 802.11? It will be just as secure as this, and can be done on commodity hardware and with free software.

  11. Relax, my man by ekrout · · Score: 4, Funny

    joehoya writes "I realize this is a couple of days old..."

    Hey, this is Slashdot, my friend! We post things two or even three times just to ensure that our faithful geek readership doesn't miss a beat on the latest and greatest technology news of the past 48 hours^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hweek^H^H^H^Hmonth^H^H^H^H^H year!

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  12. Possible Use for detecting detecting software? by lpret · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In a recent article we discussed the futility of implementing a detector detector in a network. This seems that this would be one use that would actually help as an extra layer of defense.

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    1. Re:Possible Use for detecting detecting software? by sakeneko · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In a recent article [slashdot.org] we discussed the futility of implementing a detector detector in a network. This seems that this would be one use that would actually help as an extra layer of defense.

      Stratum8 Networks , perhaps? (Disclaimer -- I work there, so I'm not unbiased.) :)

  13. why not in software? by mocktor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    impressive stuff... from what the datasheet says this all looks to be implemented hardware on the card - but given the low-level facilities of the chipsets on consumer-grade 802.11 cards is there any reason why some bright coder can't do a similar thing in driverspace?

  14. In other news by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Funny
    MELBOURNE, Florida, November 4, 2002 -- Harris Corporation (NYSE:HRS) announced today that its Type 1 Encrypted, Secure Wireless Local Area Network (SWLAN) product, ClipperNet 11(TM), has been certified by the National Security Agency's (NSA) Commercial COMSEC Endorsement Program (CCEP). CLipperNet 11 is a revolutionary new product that enables civilian users to securely communicate multimedia information, including data, voice and video, via a wireless network at an unprecedented 11 Megabits-per-second (Mbps).

    "ClipperNet 11 is an innovative new product that allows us to provide our civilian customers with the advantages of secure wireless communications," said an NSA spokesperson. "With Type 1 Encryption, NSANet 11 meets the Department of Defense's stringent requirements for wireless transmission of both classified and unclassified information."

    When asked whether the product had any relationship with the Clipper chip proposal of the mid 1990's, the NSA declined to comment. "Er, emm ... we don't have any comment on that", said one NSA spokesperson, who was last seen leaving hastily.

    "Don't worry", a Harris spokesperson said. "We would never even think of embedding any technology into our products that would make it possible for secret government agencies to read the encrypted data stream, and we would certainly never use any information gained in that way for marketing purposes. Trust us!"

    Harris shares were up 2 3/4 points today.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  15. Re:hum.... by Syncdata · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When will someone take one apart
    Excellent Question, especially given the well publicized trouble government employees have in holding on to their laptops. Just cause it's technically secure doesn't mean the laptop itself can't just get picked from an unnattentive employee.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
  16. Anyone want to guess? by Neck_of_the_Woods · · Score: 3, Funny



    Anyone want to guess what the WarChacking Symbol for this would end up being? Mabye a secure network symbol a barbed wire? Condom? gun? Handcuffs?

    --
    Neck_of_the_Woods
    #/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
  17. Secrecy by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the press release:

    ...said an NSA spokesperson.

    So even their spokespeople are unidentified?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  18. Do it at higher level anyway by Goonie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better still, don't bother with encryption at the hardware or driver level at all - do it at the application level where the algorithm can be changed without too much hassle if it is discovered to be insecure.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  19. expensive network kit by Indy1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ouch, i just found the price list. This stuff is $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    The pc card's are $2500.

    Wap's are $1000.

    I think I'll stick to VPN over 802.11

    Source of pricing is www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/support/priceli st.html

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  20. Re:dnetc by Flamesplash · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...or tethered with fiber optic cables...

    Hey! that would be a great way to keep them from drifting off into space.

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
  21. ...it is... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://www.gnupg.org/

    ;)

  22. There's that secure wireless oxymoron again by kbielefe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    At my work we deal with a lot of secret and/or export controlled material. There are areas at my work set aside for foreign customers that we aren't even allowed to run a wired LAN connection to. If you want to run some software over there, you have to put it on a floppy or CD and carry it over from your desk. This can be a real pain when trying to find an elusive bug. Maybe it was just easier than getting the security measures approved to connect the LAN.

    If they have good reason at all to be that paranoid about a wired LAN, I think it won't take long for this "secure" wireless thing to come back and bite the NSA.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  23. MAIN NSA COMSEC ACCOUNT by Istealmymusic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main NSA COMSEC Account is 880099, and its address follows:

    Middle River Facility
    Building A-W Dock 2
    2800 Eastern Boulevard
    Middle River, MD 21220
    --
    "The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
  24. PCMCIA still good?? by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it about time that PCMCIA were replaced so that people have to buy new laptops etc?

    (I imagine it wont be long before you won't be able to buy a MB with PCI; VLB started out as a purely graphics bus (VESA local bus) and it wasn't long before it was used for SCSI, Multi IO and probably others. Were there ever VLB NICs?

    With this history it is a little surprising that manufacturers arn't producing multi-AGP boards and SCSI cards etc on AGP, eventually replacing PCI.

    I know its not an exact match, and maybe theres something about the AGP standard that makes this impossible, but you get the picture;

    Market saturation requires forced obsolescence and upgrade fever to achieve constant economic growth. Any stability spells doom for the market for some reason; its a self destabilising system. Any trends of economic stability as opposed to economic growth causes instability and either growth or shrinkage, thereby producing instability again.
    I dunno about the commas in those sentences. Feel free to rearrange them to taste.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  25. NSA Press Release by Newer+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    For Immediate Release: NSA to use Navajo "Code Talkers" for 802.11b encryption. 11/12/2002 The National Security Agency ("NSA") of the United States announced that effective immeidately they would be using 'code talking' technology based on the language of the Navajo Nation to encrypt all their 802.11b links. "We feel that this is an approriate encryption for these type of links" says Hugh G. Peter Head of NSA Encryption. "Besides, it will put many unemployed Native Americans back to work". The move was immediately commended by Microsoft Corp., who pledged to use this radical new encryption system in all it's new wireless products.

  26. This is great! by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My unit sets up networks in the field (I'm a Marine) and most of the work involves running a fiber backbone and running CAT5 to each and every computer in the fieldHQ (tents). We had looked into running wireless but of course the security was non-existent. Maybe now, we can spend more time training the junior Marines on real networking, not running a CAT5 drops to some officer who "has" to check his email. My platoon will be looking into this tomorrow, I can assure you.

  27. So what? Even the phone book is classified! by pvera · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a non-event. And secret is not a life-or-death classification level, as anything that is considered remotely important will automagically get tagged with TS + keyword.

    --
    Pedro
    ----
    The Insomniac Coder
  28. Most readers missing the point... by drunkrussian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To get something approved for processing at the SECRET level is a moderately big deal for those who work with such data. For the outside world, it's not the last word on the quality of the system.

    You can't, for example, get a Linux box approved to process SECRET information (at least, last I checked). Windows is approved, however. Yet, for the commercial user, I would say that Linux is more secure than Windows. What matters is how the system is set up. I'm kind of surprised that there's any demand for wireless networking at the SECRET level. With few exceptions, a classified box has to be physically disconnected from all other machines and operate only from hard drives with no communications software on them. There was an article on cnn.com today about a hacker who got access to sensitive but not classified information on military networks. The reason he didn't get access to classified information is because of the way it's protected.

    And forget about anything at the TOP SECRET level or above. We have a room at the office that does work at the TS level. If you bring a disk in there, you can't leave with it. If you bring a hard drive in there, it can't leave the room. Once a computer goes in there, it can't leave either. Well, that's not entirely true...security chops them up into little tiny pieces, waves magnets over them, and does some other magic to make them completely clean before they can leave. They're certainly never useable again. They even destroy the monitors before removing them from the room, in case an image might be burned into them.

    Anyway. People who deal with SECRET information will probably be interested in this article, and I'm sure life will go on with no change for those who don't.

  29. Clarification on military networks by Boka+Dominigo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I speak only for myself, not as an official representative of the U.S. Government.

    I decided to write this because I often see misconceptions of military networks on slashdot.

    I have been a network administrator in the U.S. Air Force for 5 years. I have administered classified networks in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S. I have worked on Air Force and Army networks.

    (1) The basic levels of classification are:
    Unclassified
    Confidential
    Secret
    Top Secret

    There's some gray areas between and above but those are the basics

    (2) You can process classified information on almost any platform you want. Top Secret on DOS, no problem. Windows 95, every day. Linux, sure. The big restrictions come when a computer is connected to both classified and unclassified networks. In that case the machine must be trusted to differentiate between the classifications. It must make sure that only Unclass was writted to the disk you're going to carry over to the unclassified network.

    (3) Classified information, once properly encrypted, is no longer classified and you can pretty much do you what you want with it (put it on your t-shirt, print it on a flag and wave it, blast it in to space, send it over the internet, whatever)

    (4) Because of the above, wireless and classified are nothing new. Radios, wireless networks, satellite phones, all of the them are used to transmit classified information.

    (5) Moving classified information over unclassified networks is old news and several devices already exist. Devices like the NES (Network Encryption System) and the TACLANE are used to plug in to a classified network, encrypt and encapsulate the data, then move that data over an unclassified network.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/_work/kg -1 75.html

    (6) What this new device offers is conveniance. Previously to run a network over a wireless link the procedure went something like:

    Connect computer/network to DTE/DCE device
    Connect DTE/DCE device to crypto
    Connect crypto to wireless transmission medium

    These steps needed to be completed for both sides of each link. It is slow, complicated, and expensive.

    (7) Why not use IPSEC? It's complicated and not NSA certified. You should be able to give crypto to a user and only explain three things to them; in, out, power. Nothing to misconfigure, either it works or it doesn't, no chance of classified spillage.

    (8) Why doesn't someone with access just take this thing apart and figure out whatever? This product is likely a CCI (controlled cryptographic item). Opening CCI without certification/authorization is illegal. Besides, without disecting the chips, how much are you really going to learn?

    (9) The NSA must have a back door built in, right? No. A back door built in for them would be vulnerable to anybody. I highly doubt we would move national security information over a wireless network with a back door. If you're using their encryption keys, they have a copy and can read the info anyway. If you're not using their encryption keys, then you don't have one of these devices.

    (10) Isn't someone going to crack this in a week? No. NSA certified encryption is good and well tested. We still routinely send Top Secret information over 10 year old encryption devices. If they had been compromised, we wouldn't be using them. The information sent from this device is encrypted. Without the same encryption key, you can't communicate with the device. Period.

    (11) What about sniffing packets and breaking the key? Go ahead and try. Encrypted information has been floating around in the air for years and years. Multimillion man armies have been sniffing and recording and trying to break for decades. They keys change often. Sure, someone might (if they were lucky) break one key in ten years, but many devices get a new key every day.

    I'm sure I left some stuff out and there are faults in my knowledge and spelling. If you have any questions, post and I will try to answer them.