Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA's History of Communications Security — For Your Eyes, Too

Posted by timothy on from the as-long-as-it-passes-through-ft-meade dept.

Phil Sp. writes "Government Attic, those fine investigative pack rats, have outdone themselves this time. Just posted: a declassified NSA document entitled A History of Communications Security, Volumes I and II: The David G. Boak Lectures [PDF] from 1973 and 1981. This is an absolutely fascinating look into how the NSA viewed (views?) communications security and touches on all sorts of topics, including public key crypto, economics, DES, tamper-resistance, etc. It was seemingly from a collection of lectures to new employees. The first 85 pages are heavily redacted but the remaining 80 or so are largely intact. It even concludes with a cryptogram puzzle for the reader!"

7 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. What I heard a while back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The NSA uses ---------- to monitor ------------- by ----------- and ------------ through a network of ------------. It was really pretty interesting.

  2. The solution: by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 4, Funny

    It even concludes with a cryptogram puzzle for the reader

    The answer?
    FRANK SHOEMAKER WOULD CALL THIS NOISE.

    1. Re:The solution: by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong answer, Hans. Care to try for double jeopardy?

      It reads: ALWAYS DRINK YOUR OVALTINE

      Duh.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  3. Their "FLOP" section was blanked out. :( by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was so hoping that they turned honest and revealed some errors. Never trust someone that refuses to admit they were wrong. If you can't recognize when you are wrong, you don't know when you are right.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. Why was it classified by Techmeology · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why was it classified? Given that all good security must be based on rigorous unbreakability, not secrecy, the analytical powers of many eyes would have been useful. Also, I'm opposed to governmental secrecy.

    --
    Excuse for why is your room always messy?
    1. Re:Why was it classified by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are correct, however, sometimes you don't want to know about bad algorithms.. or more accurately, you don't want your enemies to know that you've cracked their codes.

      Sometimes, things are just politically sensitive.. ie, We cracked the code, realized that country X placed a spy into country Y, we notified country Y, and the spy for country X had a tragic accident...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Why was it classified by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that all good security must be based on rigorous unbreakability, not secrecy

      That's commonly held belief of security amateurs. In reality, obscurity is a valuable tool in the arsenal of the security professional - because an attacker cannot be prepared to address a measure that he does know the existence of beforehand. For example - a visible set of VCR's in a place equipped with visible cameras... but they are dummies with the real ones (or a backup set) behind a nondescript door.
       
       

      the analytical powers of many eyes would have been useful

      The analytical power of many experienced and knowledgeable eyes - sure. But those eyes have clearances and access to the document. Just because the general public doesn't see it, doesn't mean that a lot of qualified people haven't.