FBI Failed To Break Encryption of Hard Drives

benoliver writes to let us know that the FBI has failed to decrypt files of a Brazilian banker accused of financial crimes by Brazilian law enforcement, after a year of attempts. Five hard drives were seized by federal police at the apartment of banker Daniel Dantas, in Rio de Janeiro, during Operation Satyagraha in July 2008. (The link is to a Google translation of the original article in Portuguese.) The article in English mentions two encryption programs, one Truecrypt and the other unnamed. 256-bit AES was used, and apparently both the Brazilian police and the FBI tried dictionary attacks against it. No Brazilian law exists to force Dantas to produce the password(s).

Comments

is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Joe The Dragon]

is waterboarding next to get the info?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[countertrolling]

That's not offtopic. If they want the info bad enough, that is what they will do. And nobody will be able to prove a damn thing.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[mangu]

is waterboarding next to get the info?

Since his pockets seem to be deep enough to buy a president of the Brazilian Supreme Court, not likely.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Dahamma]

No, they just need to send it to Wikileaks and tell them it's a video of waterboarding.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[keeboo]

That's not offtopic. If they want the info bad enough, that is what they will do. And nobody will be able to prove a damn thing.

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used (Federal Constitution, Art. 5, Inc. LVI).

Also, commiting a crime in order to produce proofs is aggravated up to a 1/3 (Decree-Law 2.848, Art. 342, Par. 1).

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Pharmboy]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used

Same in America, and usually, that is how it works. More often than not, however, they are more worried about using the information rather than punishing the offender (ie: to get to his bosses) so they do it anyway, and try to convict without that information. This is mainly the federal government that does this, state governments almost never do this.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[fm6]

Hello! Water. Electronics. They want to retrieve the data not destroy it.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[stonewallred]

If waterboarding is not torture, then you are willing, I presume, to undergo it for two or three days? If not, fuck you.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[fm6]

Learn to read. TPP didn't say it was legal. Read the text you yourself quoted.

Coerced evidence is illegal almost everywhere. And it ends up being used almost everywhere, because it's really hard to prove coercion.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Requiem18th]

Did he downloaded Toy Story 3? No, then waterboarding -- or a competent IT department-- are out of the question.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[keeboo]

I'm guessing there's laws against it in the U.S. too, that didn't stop them. What makes you think they're beyond it in South America? The fact that you live there, perhaps? Quite narcissistic, but that seems to be the norm for Brazilians.

It seems that, in your opinion, all south american countries are barbaric lands where no laws are to be taken seriously.
That's incredibly arrogant of yours. Because of things like that, the rest of the World put all US citizens (including the good ones) in the same basket and call them assholes.

Even you completely disregard the morality (or immorality) of laws, good/bad/weak/silly laws are to be enforced and there are practical issues:

If they torture the guy in order to obtain the information, the next day that bastard will make a public scandal, cry his human rights were violated etc, and his lawyers will invoke every conceiveable law and the process will stall, badly.
Then his lawyers will spread doubt about any other evidence previously collected. They will make a party out of it and, in the end, the guy may be considered innocent.

So, even if you're willing to torture the guy, it's not practical.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Mitchell314]

Don't be silly. Of course they're not going to use the hard drives as the board.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[the eric conspiracy]

Well in the USA the way to do that is immunize the guy and then compel him to testify. Since he has immunity he can't use the 5th amendment.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Pharmboy]

That is fine and dandy, but they will just usually do illegal searches, knowing the courts will just throw them out later. Sometimes they get lucky and the courts don't throw them out. Either way is fine, as the goal was to simply get the information. This is particularly true with drug or terrorism cases. It is rare to immunize someone, as even then the person wouldn't comply, from fear of being killed by higher ups in the drug trade, or because they are terrorists and don't care about cooperating or the costs.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[tomhudson]

First off, water-boarding isn't torture.

Right - but in the wrong way. It's use is a crime against humanity. If the results of torture are suspect, the results of water-boarding are useless.

You can justify it any way you want - it still doesn't make it either right or useful.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Pichu0102]

You really believe that they won't just ignore it?
The law is only a tool for the rich and powerful to use. It doesn't apply to them. They can kill you for kicks and get away with it.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is he modded insightfull ? A lot of countries are still taking their laws seriously even when applied to their police force, no matter what the USA does. And the anti-brazillian comment is out of place.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[keeboo]

Someone modded the parent "flamebait" but that's an interesting point IMO.

The "problem" in Brazil is that, even if you're willing to do thing in a not-quite-right way, that's seldom viable in practice - specially in high profile cases with lots of expensive lawyers.

Why is that? The current Brazilian Constitution (created in 1988) and several key laws give lots of rights to the accused ones.
That's all nice and stuff, but many people (myself included) believe that they went too far and, basically, criminals are being treated like defenceless babies.
One thing you can hear about the Federal Constitution is that it was created "under the (left-wing) political prisoner syndrome". That is, back in 1988 the politicians wanted to avoid human rights abuses like the ones from the 1960s and 1970s (during the militar government), but (though well intended) they went too far.

The result is that it made criminal prosecution very hard in Brazil.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Tacvek]

Granting immunity is used in a fair number of crimes, but using it as away to force tesitmony frm an uncooperative witness is very rare, Much more common is the witness is perfectly willing to testify in exchange for the immunity. Cases like organized crime are the very reason for the WITSEC program (more popularly known as the witness protection program).

An even bigger problem with attempting to use immunity to compel testimony is that Supreme Court has held that only use immunity is required to compel tesitimony. That means the indivudual can later be prosecuted for the crime, but his testimony of evidence dirived from his testimony cannot be used against him. The only problem is that that should mean that only evidence collected before the testimony should be admissible, because it is impossible to show that evidence later collected was not found based on the testimony, and the courts do not require the police to prove that, so only evidence that was obviously based on the testimony is ever excluded.

Furthermore. If they refuse to testify they are charged with only contempt of court, but if they do testify, and that helps the cops get evidence against him, he is in bad shape. So given the choice he may well accept the contempt charge.

Finally, it can be hard to trust the testimony of somebody forced to testify against their will. Hiding this fact from the jury would be a bad idea because the jury has a right to know any reason why a particular witness may be unreliable. On the other hand, if the jury does know, The testimony really does not help the prosecution much.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[fishexe]

This is mainly the federal government that does this, state governments almost never do this.

That you know of...

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[ipX]

No, they just need to send it to Wikileaks and tell them it's a video of waterboarding.

In all fairness I don't think parent is a troll, I think it's a weak attempt at a joke about wikileaks breaking encryption:

Somehow -- it will not say how -- WikiLeaks found the necessary computer time to decrypt a graphic video, released Monday, of a United States Army assault in Baghdad in 2007 that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the news agency Reuters.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[ScrewMaster]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used (Federal Constitution, Art. 5, Inc. LVI

My guess is that, the next time this happens, it will no longer be considered "illegal means".

I recall a Slashdot article that said England already has a law that requires individual to turn over their passwords to law enforcement. Brazil's government may decide that they need something similar.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[stabele]

Contempt charge can be repeated virtually unlimited times,it is not one time thing. Therefore cooperation in exchange for good plea bargain (or even better immunity if offered) is most times smarter more by defendant.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[laron]

I take issue with your first statement. Luckily, there is an easy test to see what is and what isn't torture:
A claims that method X isn't torture, B says it is. Just have B apply Method X to A, until A confesses that he was wrong.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Tacvek]

It can be, but AIUI only for as long as the court case drags on. After the case end, the prosecutor cannot demand that you testify, so you cannot be held in contempt once again for failing to testify. So you may be held in contempt several times, but not unlimited, unless the court case goes on for ever.

Since no court is going to allow the trial to go on without end, or be postponed too many times, there is a limit, which may well be significantly less than the crime you could end up charged with after you testify ant the police use your testimony to find evidence. (It is impossible for them not to use it if they continue to search for evidence so even if the cops attempt to play by the rules, they will still be unable to do so.)

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right after - and as probable as - Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Bernanke, the Chase-Morgan Wells-Fargo etc., and BP gang and CEOs get nabbed and waterboarded. For the same reasons. You shouldn't go holding your breath about it, though.

Dantas is, in Brazil, as those guys are in the US. One of the gang, the 'elite' - or it's sacred bagmen. Got caught on the wrong side of a standard political dispute, for a while. He still has support and enough inside dirt to hold on for a long time.

He'll recover once the parties in cause reconcile, somehow. Probably when the newcomers hang on long enough to qualify as "Lower-tier" old-timers. And as long as he - and his "patrons" - can pay the lawyers, of course.

Meanwhile, us, we, the little folk - get scraps of 'justice'. And the novel satisfaction of seeing a once untouchable and all-powerful banker get prosecuted and do a little time behind bars. In special cells, of course. The comfortable ones. With personal visits. Outside food from good restaurants. Cable-tv. And so on.

Not the popular prisons. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or...

I left the really shocking ones out, of course.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[the_fat_kid]

"If they torture the guy in order to obtain the information, the next day that bastard will make a public scandal, cry his human rights were violated etc, and his lawyers will invoke every conceiveable law and the process will stall, badly.
Then his lawyers will spread doubt about any other evidence previously collected. They will make a party out of it and, in the end, the guy may be considered innocent."

wow. just wow. what part of the word do you live in? Is it really done like that there?
Here, in my part of the world (Wisconsin, USA, northern hemisphere) they will torture you for the information, deny you access to counsel, threaten your family and brand you an "enemy of the state" or a "terrorist" and send you to a prison where you voice will not be heard and your opinions will not matter.
I feel no animosity toward the people of South America. Many bright, gifted and beautiful people have come from that part of the world. I just find it hard to believe that after the government tortures you that they are going to let you invoke any laws on your side. I think that the CIA has taught them different.
Antonio Ferreira Braga might tend to agree with me.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

The result is that it made criminal prosecution very hard in Brazil.

While, due to authoritarian corruption, prosecution(persecution) against political dissidents remains quite simple.. Kinda sounds like that is the kind of people you really want to persecute. Real organized criminals roam freely about unmolested throughout the world. Nothing special about brasil. Their laws are selectively enforced just like everywhere.

...the (left-wing) political prisoner syndrome"...

Yeah, you sound like one of those authoritarians. Or you're just playing the part to raise a ruckus.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you guys have 5th amendment vaccines?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws were made as they always were. To protect the rich, powerful, and well-connected. Preferably whiter and male. And to damn the poor and duskier. And more female.

And to fatten, empower, and privilege all members of the judicial system.

The poor, better-melanized and female are - for all intents - railroaded. Those who have money including drug gangsters - keep afloat as long as they have anough money to feed the judicial system and bribe everyone else, and don't run afoul of "greater interests".

Brazil has about 5000 families that "own" about 40% of the gdp. Only ~2% of the population makes more than about U$1200 a month. Another 40% of the gdp is taken up by taxes of all sorts. The remainding 98% of the population is just as unequally distributed. And scrabbles for for the remaining 20% of the gdp. That's about 180 million people disputing the gdp of, I think, Latvia. Or so.

And banks and big corporations - ultimately owned by foreign capital - are ultimate and sacred. Like BP is, in the US.

Each one of them is - in practice - a different "country". With it's own laws, powers, treaties, systems, authority, sovreignity, and autonomy.

The common folk get milked, and railroaded. As the system - and the laws - were designed to do it.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[mwvdlee]

I can only speak for my own country, the Netherlands, but here such things have happenned.

I can't think of any case where physical torture has been used, but emotional abuse has been used to get confessions in a handfull of cases in the past few decades.

Of those, all of the ones I know about ended in dismissal of the case or significantly lower charges and all of them ended up with court cases against the officials using or ordering illegal methods.

The general feeling here seems to be that immoral behaviour is immoral regardless the circumstances.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[countertrolling]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used...

You didn't read the entire post. You still have to show evidence they did anything illegal.. This torture business is pretty good at not leaving a mark. And Brazil is hardly a shining beacon of civil rights.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[jbssm]

First off, water-boarding isn't torture.

Oh really, thanks for the info. Next time I see an American citizen walking here in the street in Europe (they are pretty easy to spot, they normally carry shorts and sandals with socks even if it's winter, poor people still didn't understand that Southern Europe is not a tropical country, they have a strange accent and they make dumb remarks about most of the stuff around), I guess I'll just pick one take in home and water board him until he agrees to give me his money. I guess, since it's not torture it's surely not illegal, so I will be ok with the law and earn a few quid.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[toastar]

I'm guessing there's laws against it in the U.S. too, that didn't stop them. What makes you think they're beyond it in South America? The fact that you live there, perhaps? Quite narcissistic, but that seems to be the norm for Brazilians.

It seems that, in your opinion, all south american countries are barbaric lands where no laws are to be taken seriously.

That's incredibly arrogant of yours. Because of things like that, the rest of the World put all US citizens (including the good ones) in the same basket and call them assholes.

Even you completely disregard the morality (or immorality) of laws, good/bad/weak/silly laws are to be enforced and there are practical issues:

If they torture the guy in order to obtain the information, the next day that bastard will make a public scandal, cry his human rights were violated etc, and his lawyers will invoke every conceiveable law and the process will stall, badly.

Then his lawyers will spread doubt about any other evidence previously collected. They will make a party out of it and, in the end, the guy may be considered innocent.

So, even if you're willing to torture the guy, it's not practical.

Which is why it's easier just to have him disappeared.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Dahamma]

Weak... or subtle, well informed, and topical! ;) But apparently some mods aren't. Oh well, at least someone got it.

But seriously, it is on topic - a non-profit rogue web site can decrypt US military data, but the govt can't decrypt a white collar criminal's hard drives? Something is wrong with this picture...

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Toonol]

Here, in my part of the world (Wisconsin, USA, northern hemisphere) they will torture you for the information, deny you access to counsel, threaten your family and brand you an "enemy of the state" or a "terrorist" and send you to a prison where you voice will not be heard and your opinions will not matter.

No, they won't. Really.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

hat's all nice and stuff, but many people (myself included) believe that they went too far and, basically, criminals are being treated like defenceless babies.

Fuck you. No, really...fuck you.

It is not possible to go too far in that direction. You take away just enough rights to prevent an anarchist nightmare, but no more. It's still evil that we must take away those rights, but the few assholes who want to hurt others for personal gain make it necessary to do so. Still, it is always very, very important that you're always aware that every law, regardless of how well-intentioned, causes you to slide a bit more into the slippery slope towards tyranny. So, when absolutely necessary in order to protect your society's way of life, you do it. Never do it just because some people are getting away with things you don't think they should...the price you're paying isn't worth it.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, water-boarding isn't torture.

Fuck you, Dick Cheney. We executed Japanese commanders for doing it to American POWs, so it's fucking torture. You'd have realized that if you took your mouth off Glenn Beck's dick long enough to get some oxygen to what passes for your brain.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

You try to eat ice-cream for three days, see how good you feel.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[AHuxley]

Most of South America recalls the CIA funded CONDORTEL telex system.
People where tortured and the their words transcribed in real time for Spanish, Portuguese and English network users with clearance.
They could also submit questions back in near real time.
After a military dictatorship the legal system is usually cleaned up a bit.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[morcego]

And Brazil is hardly a shining beacon of civil rights

Care to clarify on that ? I live in Brazil and, based on what I read, I feel my civil rights are much safer here than in USA and several European countries.
 

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Jane Q. Public]

I have posted this a number of times, so pardon the repetition. But it is surprising how often this comes up:

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Nutria]

Well in the USA the way to do that is immunize the guy and then compel him to testify.

You're confusing television with reality.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Runaway1956]

"Quite narcissistic"

I don't think that word means exactly what you think it means. Whether you understand the word properly or not, I think that Keeboo has you pegged.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

In think in turn, you are suffering from the (right-wing) victim blaming syndrome. It's not the fault of torture victims that the justice department is incompetent. The "fix" for incompetence isn't to compromise human rights, the current global fascist trend heading in that direction notwithstanding.

Your argument consists of cheap rhetoric. In the same vein, you could accuse the Geneva conventions of being shaped in a "post WW II era" and although they meant well, they went too far. Nonsense. They never went far enough, because we're doing it again. And this time, we can't even be bothered.

It's a simple matter of time before torture for password extraction will be commonplace.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Randle_Revar]

>immunize the guy
Against what? the flu? mmr? polio?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that never stops is torture.

i.e. "Eating pizza isn't torture" .. until it is.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything can be torture if you force someone to undergo it until they admit to being wrong.
Do you think sex is torture? No? Well hey, how does free sex sound? Great, I'll just go find the ugliest, dirtiest, STD-ridden crack whores I can find, and they will have their way with you 24/7 until you confess that you're wrong.

How about eating chocolate cake? Is that torture? Well guess what you'll be eating for the next 6 months!

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If waterboarding is not torture, then you are willing, I presume, to undergo it for two or three days? If not, fuck you.

Anything specific for three days is torture. Bad test.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[keeboo]

hat's all nice and stuff, but many people (myself included) believe that they went too far and, basically, criminals are being treated like defenceless babies.

Fuck you. No, really...fuck you.

Such a valuable argument from someone too coward to even show his/her nickname here.

It is not possible to go too far in that direction. You take away just enough rights to prevent an anarchist nightmare, but no more. It's still evil that we must take away those rights, but the few assholes who want to hurt others for personal gain make it necessary to do so. Still, it is always very, very important that you're always aware that every law, regardless of how well-intentioned, causes you to slide a bit more into the slippery slope towards tyranny. So, when absolutely necessary in order to protect your society's way of life, you do it. Never do it just because some people are getting away with things you don't think they should...the price you're paying isn't worth it.

Look at you!

Do you know the Brazilian Laws? Do you have experience dealing with those laws?
Did you ever fought (like taking legal risks or even risking your neck) against something wrong?
You sound like those indoctrinated left-wing youngsters who believe in absolute truths.
Your political pamphlet-like text really shows.

Do you have the slightlest idea what is, like, putting your feet in the Federal Public Ministry to denounce financial corruption against people who can do you real harm?
Well, I do. And not only that.

Meanwhile, what were you doing? Rooting for Brazil in some Footbal World Cup game like 99,9% of brazilians?
Yeah, that - and your forum posts - helped mankind a lot. Thanks kiddo.

Grow up! Get some experience from the real world, then come back.

Because, really, it's way too easy to judge other people using a left-wing dogma.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used

Same in America, and usually, that is how it works.

For a couple hundred pages of citations to the contrary, please read Constitutional Chaos. A bunch of under $10 used copies there, it's a very well-done book that every US citizen should understand before hitting the voting booth.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So far nobody's been able to invent a slope that's 'just slippery enough'. Look around.

but the few assholes who want to hurt others for personal gain make it necessary to do so

Necessary? Could they really do more damage than the status quo?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this insightful? Where is the insight in "fuck you?".

Fuck you mods. There, now this is insightful too... or perhaps its just inciteful.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you live in a civilized country that has laws against torture, namely Brazil, not the US of A...

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used (Federal Constitution, Art. 5, Inc. LVI).

The theory is called "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" and is, in fact, derived from US American constitutional court.

see: URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[fm6]

Why is that? The current Brazilian Constitution (created in 1988) and several key laws give lots of rights to the accused ones.

So does the U.S. constitution, which is a bit older. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept that making something illegal does not necessarily prevent it from happening.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcefully clogging a prisioner's airways with liquid is torture.

BTW, US Army physicians that participated in might find themselves under aim of medical oversight boards, both in America and internationally. Apparently, some kind of investigation is under way, as physicians are forbidden by international treaties to participate or help in any way or form in the abuse of prisioners (which includes checking if they're alright, in order to withstand further abuse).

Isn't awful that the USA tortures and that the UK demands passwords (i.e.demands that someone under custody of the State produce proof against oneself)?

Apparently, however, Brazilian constitutional law hasnt forgotten the lessons learned from courts elsewhere.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[fluffy99]

Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used

Same in America, and usually, that is how it works.

For a couple hundred pages of citations to the contrary, please read Constitutional Chaos. A bunch of under $10 used copies there, it's a very well-done book that every US citizen should understand before hitting the voting booth.

They wanted more info on the potential espionage. They didn't necessarily want it to use in a court of law.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a valuable argument from someone too coward to even show his/her nickname here.

Some of the most important and influential writings of all time were written by people who chose to remain anonymous. In fact, the oppressive regimes that I argue we're slipping towards always try to stop anonymous writing with their secret police. So, by pulling the, "you're too much of a coward to identify yourself" inane argument, you prove my point that you don't understand enough of history to truly grasp the consequences of what you wish for. However, even in your ignorance you're still here arguing for less protections available to those who are accused, so yes...I believe, "fuck you" is an appropriate sentiment.

Do you know the Brazilian Laws?

As a matter of fact, I've lived in Brazil for 14 years.

Do you have experience dealing with those laws?

Not personally, but I've seen enough to know that the laws there are already too strict and remove too many freedoms. Suing Google over dirty jokes on Orkut for example. The problem as I see it are too many laws, and too many of those stupid laws actually being enforced.

You sound like those indoctrinated left-wing youngsters who believe in absolute truths.

On the contrary, my lack of belief in absolute truths is what drives the very core of my argument. You want the government to be able to force this guy to hand over his encryption keys, because you want him to be prosecuted for what he did. Fine. What happens when they come after you? Oh, they would never do that because you're not doing anything wrong, right? Well, you said,

Did you ever fought (like taking legal risks or even risking your neck) against something wrong?

and now you've given a tool for the government to shut you down if you're ever in a position where you are fighting against something they are doing that's wrong. You said these protections were given as an overreaction to the abuses of the military government, but what you don't understand is that it's not an overreaction, it's a necessary one. If the government ever starts going in that direction again, they'll want to restrict speech. So right now they're using that power to prosecute a criminal. Tomorrow they could use that power because you've been writing political pamphlets against the people currently in power, seize your computer, and force you to hand over encryption keys. Remember, they decide what the laws are, so they can make you a criminal at any time. Yes, if it ever gets to that point, they can always force you to hand over the keys through torture, but that's much harder to hide and justify.

Do you have the slightlest idea what is, like, putting your feet in the Federal Public Ministry to denounce financial corruption against people who can do you real harm?

That's funny. You don't trust the government because they're too corrupt, but you want to give them more powers. And I'm the naive kiddo who needs to grow up and get some experience from the real world. Nice.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[BLKMGK]

Information from an illegal search that is used to find other evidence is also likely to get that evidence kicked out - fruit of the poison tree or somesuch? I do not think the police feel encouraged to make illegal searches as if it were a gamble that might pay off.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[NNKK]

Have you so much as glanced at the news in the last decade?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[countertrolling]

They're ahead of some and behind others. Considering the condition of the rest of the world, Brazil is about average in the civil rights arena. This guy is making them sound like some heroic standout. And after reading through his other posts, he sounds like their propaganda minister, and would like to remove some basic rights. And besides, I wasn't even singling out Brazil to begin with, though it may sound like that because the story is centered there.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[rtb61]

Catch with that is you can not force someone to remember anything, if they refuse to answer they are in contempt, however if they say they cannot remember they are not in contempt until you prove they can remember.

In this case some detective work is likely in order, simply track down anything that the culprit used passwords to access, any internet service, any banking service, company server access etc. define his password preferences and use that to narrow down the dictionary.

He also stored five hard disk drives in a cupboard in his apartment, that is pretty strange considering the storage capacity available and what would have actually been required to carry out the criminal actions. So check the age differences of the drive. He used two different encryption programs, likely he also conducted more than one pass, possibly interleaving the encryption process 2 x 2.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[MartinSchou]

Anything specific for three days is torture. Bad test.

Really? So you'd be unwilling to suffer through "The Comfy Chair" for three days? I sincerely doubt that'd qualify as torture by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Jane Q. Public]

First, there is nothing "Left-Wing" about what he wrote. At least not by American definitions. The principle of which he writes is one of the principles behind our own Constitution, which (by our standards) is neither Left or Right. Please see the quote from Benjamin Franklin that I posted above. And given that it precedes the Brazilian equivalent, I think there is argument for precedent of definition.

Nevertheless, what you describe appears to be a situation of what we might call "too much freedom", with the resulting (relative) anarchy that it entails. (And that is very far from any kind of "left-wing" ideal.) And as with any system with relatively weak criminal laws that does not also offer legal protections to the innocent, the physically powerful (i.e., those who accumulate, and are willing to use, force) will tend to dominate.

Even so, you should be aware that many Americans, having suffered for almost 10 times the number or years the Brazilian constitution has existed the constant expansion and increasing oppression of their Federal government, would probably give a lot to trade relative positions with you. As long as they could bring their own guns.

No, we have not experienced your particular problems. At least not in this decade. But then, neither have you experienced ours. And make no mistake: ours are real, too. I have stood up in government meetings and vocally opposed politically popular but unwise laws. I have personally opposed police who were breaking the law for their own benefit. I have placed myself between criminals and innocent people they were trying to victimize.

The poster who insulted you may have misunderstood your situation, and judged it based on his own. But misunderstanding OUR situation, and judging it based on your own, is equally out of line.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the logic here. Sure Celine Dion is not torture, but I'm certainly not willing to undergo 3 days with her music!

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Ruede]

"Because of things like that, the rest of the World put all US citizens (including the good ones) in the same basket and call them assholes." ummmmm, no that is not the reason..................

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]Benjamin Franklin[...]

lol... americans quoting their old people again... how was that... "giving up liberties for security deserves no security?"... well that sure didn't stop you from being nazis to yourself the last 10 years...

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but using it as away to force tesitmony frm an uncooperative witness is very rare"

What do you MEAN it's rare? I see Jack Bauer doing it all the time!

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Yvanhoe]

Better one thousand criminals unpunished than a single innocent wrongly imprisoned.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Women's rights is not good for men. I am glad the females get the short end of the stick supposedly in Brazil. I hope they are married at age 12, 13, or 14 and raped by their husband every night and day.

I also hope the women's rights activists that infest every land and have pro-women anti-man laws passed and enforced now are done away with,

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up ... if for nothing other than his pure innocence.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[ld a,b]

Nah, the US military uses "military grade encryption" and "one time pads" while the white collar criminals use real algorithms created by some of the best mathematicians and triple-checked by all of the best mathematicians.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[dollarwizard]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used (Federal Constitution, Art. 5, Inc. LVI). Also, commiting a crime in order to produce proofs is aggravated up to a 1/3 (Decree-Law 2.848, Art. 342, Par. 1).

Of course, law vs. reality can be entirely different things.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. It would be fairer to have him undergo it twice. From everything I've read it's pretty much guaranteed that he'll turn into a crying baby and hold any opinion you care to name rather than go through drowning and death again.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Securityemo]

I read a long-winded description of the processes involved in an interview with a couple of officers in charge of this (they also trained soliders to resist torture and interrogation.) You take a person, strap him to a board, lean the body backwards, put a towel in their mouth, and pour water onto the towel. This stimulates the drowning reflex, which causes panic and immense psychological suffering. They had a series of tricks they had developed to streamline the process and counteract breathing techniques, but they wouldn't tell those. Most people break in a few seconds, apparently.
I'm quite for torturing sufficiently guilty/evil people if results can be had from it, but applying this to try to determine if someone is guilty in the first place is ovbiously inane. I'd like to think that most "interrogation" work U.S. intelligence conducts is done like this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[mikael]

If he was smart, he would have generated the encryption key automatically and randomly, and have it stored on a memory stick or mobile phone. Then he would never have a password that could be guessed through social engineering or psychology. The only thing would to keep secret would be where the encryption key was stored. Maybe that could be randomized as well.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the guilty escapees in turn cause the innocent to suffer?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Tacvek]

No. Jack Bauer gets immunity for those who are willing to testify, (or at least give him information) in exchange for the immunity. What is rare is granting immunity to those who don't want to testify even if given immunity, and then dragging them in front of the court, and telling them that since they have immunity they are not allowed to refuse to testify.

See the difference. Only in the latter case would immunity be used to "force" testimony from an uncooperative witness. In the former case, it is used to freely obtain testimony from an otherwise uncooperative witness.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[hanwen]

I just find it hard to believe that after the government tortures you that they are going to let you invoke any laws on your side. I think that the CIA has taught them different.

You are assuming that The Governments is an organ to work in a coordinated fashion: tens of thousands of people all working in perfect harmony to execute vile plans against the people; a borg of sorts.

The reality is that there are hundreds of different sub-organs each with their own agendas, that together form The Government. The law allows for many layers of appeal, and the judges in Brazil are independent to apply that law as they see fit. If a lawyer can show procedural faults, the suspect will be acquitted or at least can evade incarceration in freedom until the crime 'expires'.

Han-Wen
(not brazilian, but living there)

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[hanwen]

What now happens is that the megarich hire lawyers to appeal court decisions ad-nauseum, staying unpunished until their crimes expire. Justice becomes class-justice. Punishment is only for those that cannot afford lawyers, and innocent will still suffer, it's just that the innocents are always poor.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd go so far as to say Brazil has done a better job than America in this regard. They actually treat GLBT minorities as human beings rather than as second-class citizens.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[MaskedSlacker]

I'm certainly not willing to undergo 3 days with her music!

That's because Celine Dion IS torture. It's in the Geneva Convention. Look it up.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Brazil is very interested to hear what it would be like to be in America....

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Wrath0fb0b]

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin

But that usually means that it is better that 1 innocent person should go to jail than 101 guilty people be let free (at least if we assume you are making the strongest argument you could of the form, which is the convention). There are always going to be false convictions unless there are no convictions at all -- putting a number on the fact only obscures that fact behind some quantitative-sounding reasoning that gives you very little insight into how to actually construct a criminal justice system that reliably imprisons the guilty and acquits the innocent.

As to the instant case, if the police have the evidence to seize the content of a safe inside your castle (presumably pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate upon showing of probable caused by a sworn affiant) then they should have the right to look inside an encrypted hard drive. It's hard to see why the analogy doesn't hold over, especially since we have seen robust judicial supervision of such physical searches over the past 30 years (since the Warren Court).

See also (no affil w/ author): http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm generally not on the side of government, especially the prison system here in the U.S. but I must say that just because BF said something does not mean it is automatically logical.

If a 100 guilty people go out and commit a 100 crimes or more in a week, how have you kept the one innocent person from suffering?

Seems to me that you should weight the criteria for which the statement is given. If you are talking about 100 murderous child rapists.. then it's pretty hard to argue that letting them go would outweigh the death of one innocent. Simply because by allowing them to go free you are in effect allowing the murder of a lot more than one child.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Dahamma]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the camera on the helicopter recording the video was based on hardware and software from about 1978, when 56 bit DES was "state of the art" (and yet probably already cracked by the NSA...)

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[bronney]

"All right Goldmember. Don't play the laughing boy. There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch." -Nigel Powers

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[The Clockwork Troll]

It seems that, in your opinion, all south american countries are barbaric lands where no laws are to be taken seriously. That's incredibly arrogant of yours. Because of things like that, the rest of the World put all US citizens (including the good ones) in the same basket and call them assholes.

So because some Americans are prejudicial, the entirety of the rest of the world is prejudicial against all of America? What's the Portuguese word for irony?

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that, in your opinion, all south american countries are barbaric lands where no laws are to be taken seriously.

Yep, that is the point and a fact !

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop this useless chatter please. There was no decryption. That's just a story made up to protect the actual source.

Re:is waterboarding next to get the info?

[NateTech]

Sounds quite a bit like the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's, doesn't it?

Wrong dictionary.

[AnonymousClown]

...both the Brazilian police and the FBI tried dictionary attacks against it

They should have used a Portuguese dictionary not an English one! Geeze! Folks are soooooo US centric!

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifty bucks says the password is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[slimjim8094]

To be fair, the US FBI probably *should* be US-centric. We already have a whole group of people who do the same thing, but specifically *not* US-centric.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[drinkypoo]

...both the Brazilian police and the FBI tried dictionary attacks against it

They should have used a Portuguese dictionary not an English one! Geeze! Folks are soooooo US centric!

I suggest using the OED. Place the subject's testicles on top of volume one*...
* If using a single-volume edition, open to the end of letter 'M'. Fair results can be had with the use of electronic editions, but the technique is not recommended.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[NotQuiteReal]

Fifty bucks says the password is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

Good luck with that. Even though goals are few and far between, in a game, there is an infinite number of ways of saying it...

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
etc.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[icebraining]

That would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO, in Portuguese.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[hnangelo]

That would actually be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, in Brazilian Portuguese.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[icebraining]

Ops, sorry :) I forgot it was different in this case.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be correct in the European variant. We Brazilians chant GOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you are from Portugal. In Brazil it's GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[skogula]

Still the wrong dictionary. There are many words that 99% of the English speaking countries spell one way, that the Americans spell differently. (Colour/color for example) A hybrid dictionary should be created using regional variations of common words for use in brute force attempts like this. I don't speak a word of Portuguese, but It's a pretty good guess that regional spelling variations exist between Portugal and Brazil as well.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose. The password is "chucknorris" which by definition can never be cracked.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[adelgado]

Wrong. It would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. "Golo" is PT-pt, PT-br is "Gol". Golo just sounds weird here ;D

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[tomhudson]

Or don't use a dictionary.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[X0563511]

Don't forget the one with alternations:

GOOOOOOAAALLOOAALLOOAAAALLLL!

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[maxwell demon]

Well, even a Portuguese dictionary would not have helped. You don't find "1234" in a dictionary.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[srussia]

Fifty bucks says the password is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! Good luck with that. Even though goals are few and far between, in a game, there is an infinite number of ways of saying it... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL! etc.

Not quite infinite, but maybe a GOOGOL permutations.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Voyager529]

right...but the password is...1...2...3...4...5.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Sarten-X]

That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[jesset77]

Not quite infinite, but maybe a GOOGOL permutations.

You mean GOOGOOOAL?

In other news, there are strikingly few permutations of the pattern /G(O+A+L+)+/ to really brute force against. You can't have too many single letters repeat in a row or folk wouldn't remember how many they've already typed.

Anyway, Real Men choose passwords by forcing Youtube's transcribe audio feature to decode the vuvuzela hum.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Jane Q. Public]

The reason for that is simple: most of those countries were settled (or occupied) during England's impirialist period. So the spelling is English English. That doesn't mean American English is wrong. That would be like saying driving a Tesla is bad because most people's cars burn gasoline.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[skogula]

I never said the spelling was wrong. Just that using a dictionary that excluded potential variations in spelling was wrong.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Jane Q. Public]

Good point. I stand corrected. Or sit. Whatever.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it would be GOOOOOOOOL in Brazilian Portuguese. GOOOOOLO is European portuguese

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

actualy that would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
(without the last O at the ending)

btw i am brazilian, you probably got the word from the portuguese from portugal, with contain some diferences like british english and american english.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[hanwen]

Maybe it would be

    CALABOCAGALVÃO

?

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO, in Portuguese.

No, it wouldn't. That's spanish, stupid.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO, in Portuguese.

In Portuguese is GOL, so GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, not GOLO, golo this is a bad spanish.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Fred_A]

Fifty bucks says the password is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

It was probably salted with vuvuzelas though.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Fred_A]

Well, even a Portuguese dictionary would not have helped. You don't find "1234" in a dictionary.

Is there a dictionary for luggage combinations ?

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct:
CALABOCAGALVÃO
is the right way to say Goal in PT_Br.

Actually, all other terms previously used, if spoken in front of a crowd would just draw attention on you for being outdated.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[Anonymous Coward]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO is Spanish, in portuguese is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[BoppreH]

That would be "GOOOOOOL."

"Golo" is the European Portuguese for the Brazilian Portuguese word "Gol."

Color, colour.

Re:Wrong dictionary.

[jd]

Yes, and the French Imperialist Period, the Spanish Imperialist Period and the Portuguese Imperialist Period. The English grabbed much of North America -- eventually -- but for a long time, many places in the US were under the control of other countries - France and Spain in particular. (Which is one reason this whole immigration debate has always puzzled me, but that's another issue.)

But, yes, when using a dictionary attack, it is helpful to use the correct dictionary. US-centric excuses don't fly, for the simple reason that the FBI are there to complete a task, not merely look as if they're trying. And, frankly, given the computing power at the disposal of the FBI and the shortness of the US dictionary, how the hell did it take a whole year to try?

This does go back to the question of where the divide should be between personal safeguards and collective safeguards. These two will ALWAYS be in opposition, so you have to compromise somewhere. All of society is a compromise between these two. Should the Brazilian authorities even have the right to see what's on the hard drive? Yes/No/Maybe? All depends on where you draw that line. Should an individual have to encrypt data to be safe? Or should the authorities have the right to break any such safeguards? This is not a trivial issue.

That's what they *want* you to believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you're paranoid does NOT mean that no one's out to get you.

And you KNOW the government is out to get you.

Re:That's what they *want* you to believe

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And you KNOW the government is out to get you.

How? How do you know that isn't part of your paranoia?

Wrong Agency

[b4upoo]

The FBI has never been a leader in computer technology. Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously.
              I have often wondered if these encryption programs were not let lose by our government so that they would always be able to examine file contents.
              As far as I know only a program that uses a one time pad is truly secure and I feel that even that would be suspect unless one took the time to create his own pad.

Re:Wrong Agency

[DarkDespair5]

No, AES has been independently vetted and attacked by multiple security organizations. The only flaws that have been discovered in the algorithm are minor and inconsequential. The NSA is a double-edged sword - they help with useful security tools such as SELinux as well as their traditional spook espionage. The NSA can't crack AES even with a supercomputer (right now, and only if the user has a decent password and/or 2-factor authentication).

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

*offers b4upoo a roll of tinfoil and a bag containing 26 scrabble tiles*

Re:Wrong Agency

[swilver]

Parent should be modded +Conspiracy Theorist.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously

Stop believing in spy movies.

Re:Wrong Agency

[TubeSteak]

Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously.

Anyone serious about their security will use long passwords.
Even with supercomputer time, you're never going to crack anything the length of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (43 characters)

Re:Wrong Agency

[betterunixthanunix]

Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously.

Doubtful, we are not talking about a cipher that was created by some guy in his spare time -- this is a cipher that has been tested by numerous experts and cryptology researchers around the world. Unless the NSA has some secret way to break the code, which is possible but they probably would not want to let everyone know about over something like this, I doubt that they could crack it.

Re:Wrong Agency

[rolfwind]

The FBI has never been a leader in computer technology. Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously. I have often wondered if these encryption programs were not let lose by our government so that they would always be able to examine file contents. As far as I know only a program that uses a one time pad is truly secure and I feel that even that would be suspect unless one took the time to create his own pad.

The government has a vested interest in appearing a lot more competent or advanced than they are. Then I look at the Gulf Oil Spill and know otherwise.

If the NSA could have unlocked it for them, I believe the FBI would have been there in a split second. They probably already asked.

Gotta ask, does AES have a backdoors that they can go "compell" an organization to give them the keys to it? Seems like shaky ground to secure data on, but the article mentions it.

Re:Wrong Agency

[GWRedDragon]

This is a locally encrypted file...they don't need to crack the AES key, they just need to brute force the password. Because it is highly unlikely that the password characters are uniformly distributed (more likely a few special characters only), a large distributed attack should be able to 'crack' it with much less difficulty than reversing the AES itself.

It is not crazy to think that the NSA could have this capability.

Re:Wrong Agency

[russ1337]

That might be true of AES, but it also depends on the implementation of AES in the application where it is being used. As long as the implementation of AES isn't flawed in Truecrypt. The FBI / NSA also have the source code to look for potential weaknesses.

Perhaps if they don't find any weaknesses and find the implementation IS correct they will grant it FIPS compliance so my company can use it.....(and save us a fortune).

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday, the FBI was found to be run by aliens, hiding major secrets that would make big oil obsolete, and capable of breaking every mathematical law in the know universe in under 7 micro-seconds. Today, however, the NSA scoffed at the capabilities of the FBI and said, "Oh really? That's sooooo 1990's. Have you seen our awesome zap gun that breaks all encryption instantaneously? You haven't? Pffff, all we got was a ton of porn on the computers we tested."

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given that DARPA project to do a 1 exaflop computer, if NSA has anything comparable already, they could presumably factor a 1024 bit key in a matter of minutes, extrapolating from estimates for a personal computer with terabytes of disc and memory attacking a 1024 bit key

Re:Wrong Agency

[marcansoft]

Hard drive encryption has nothing to do with public-key encryption, much less public-key encryption using smallish keys (by today's standards, 1024 is practically insecure).

Symmentric encryption keysizes are not comparable to public key encryption keysizes. 128-bit AES keys are unbreakable today, and 256-bit keys are just healthy overkill.

Re:Wrong Agency

[morgan_greywolf]

Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA can't crack AES even with a supercomputer (right now, and only if the user has a decent password and/or 2-factor authentication).

The problem is the "decent password" part. Technically you need a 32 byte password. And by "byte" I mean binary. That's about a 96 character text password... and it needs to be completely random

Pretty frickin hard to remember a completely random password that long.

Shorter passwords can be brute forced relatively quickly with common hardware.

Re:Wrong Agency

[amRadioHed]

You never want to wait longer then the heat-death of the universe, and most of the time the length of a human life time is sufficient. Anything longer then that counts as never.

Re:Wrong Agency

[aristotle-dude]

Actually, this would not be unprecedented. I have heard of stories where the FBI sent macs and linux machines to CSIS (Canada's spy agency) because the FBI guys only knew how to crack into windows machines.

Re:Wrong Agency

[cool_arrow]

Agree. If they have the capability they're not going to reveal this for a relatively uninteresting financial crime. There is some question regarding the NSA and one of the standards to generate random numbers: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_sto.html

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused by your statement. Wouldn't a 32 byte password be 32 characters?

Re:Wrong Agency

[gweihir]

If the passphrase has more than 256 bits, brute-forcing it is less efficient by a fair margin, than direct guessing. On the practical side, passphrase guessing likely becomes very expensive for something like 50+ bits of entropy with a good key-setup. Keep in mind that the key-setup may make you work for, e.g., 1 sec of CPU time per guess. With 50 bits, that is (assuming an EC3 small unit for simplicity) around 25 Billion USD for the crack. For every 10 additional bits, add a factor of 1000. With this money, you can built special-purpose hardware, but incidentally, that is likely only going to be faster but not cheaper.

Re:Wrong Agency

[gweihir]

Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.

Wrong. There is a finite amount of matter and energy (and hence computing power) in the universe. With AES 256 these limits are already very close and possibly exceeded.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

No - you can represent the entire set of characters on your keyboard with roughly 6 bits - not the 8 bits of a full byte.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Ephemeriis]

Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.

Close enough to never that it really doesn't matter.

With modern technology the sun will have swallowed the Earth before you crack that disk.

But even if we see significant improvements in technology and we manage to crack the disk in just 50-100 years, that's probably effectively "never" as you'll likely be close enough to death not to really care too much about the incriminating evidence getting out.

Hell, even 10-20 years might as well be "never" if it exceeds the statute of limitations

Re:Wrong Agency

[morgan_greywolf]

Assuming AES has absolutely no exploitable flaw, the key has sufficient entropy, etc., you'd have to wait for the death-heat of the universe.

However, as I said, given enough time and CPU, anything stored locally is crackable. That's because there are no encryption methods with absolutely no exploitable flaws and password-based keys almost never have sufficient entropy.

Re:Wrong Agency

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If the key is also stored on the drive, protected only by a password, it isn't merely "not crazy to think that the NSA could have this capability" it is "crazy to think that random script-kiddies do not have this capability".

Most people pick lousy passwords. Brute-forcing them is restricted only by the speed of your hardware(and password-guessing is one of those conveniently parallel problems that scales with almost perfect linearity across however many nodes you want to throw at it).

Either this guy is way above average when it comes to picking good passwords, or the key was, in fact, stored separately and never located, or (tinfoil hat) they actually cracked his password three years ago, didn't find enough evidence to build a case, and would rather "admit defeat", and encourage other malefactors to trust in their encryption, than just admit that they don't have a case....

Re:Wrong Agency

[edman007]

Depends on how the password was generated, assuming I restricted myself just to lower case letters, then every letter can encode ~4.7 bits of information, that means a 55 letter sentence is going to encode more information than a 256-bit AES key, an average sized sentence is going to be long enough to do that, and even taking into account the patterns in language that sentence can still theoretically encode more than the 256-bit keys.

And if your smart you don't use a password, you use just a random number stored in a file and encrypt that with a password but store it on a separate device, I think they would find it hard to say that destroying a key is destroying the evidence and they would have to prove you actually destroyed it.

Re:Wrong Agency

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You need to use passwords that are both long and good. A naive brute-force system is, as you say, going to take forever to get "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"; but a slightly cleverer system that starts with a dictionary attack in the relevant language(s), then common slang and permutations(like l33tsp35k), then moves on to cliche phrases in those languages, and then just starts the naive brute-force would crush a password of that sort like a bug.

Some time back, I think it was on slashdot, there was discussion of a system designed specifically for that purpose. It would be seeded with all relevant and available biographical details(any writings, books/movies found in suspect's residence, terminology associated with known hobbies/professional background, etc.) and generate a dictionary of password guesses that somebody would "cleverly" choose if they were looking for something obscure; but personally memorable.

If it isn't some horrible random string, the per-character entropy is likely to be painfully low.

Re:Wrong Agency

[edman007]

The AES encryption has been public for a long time, nobody has found anything that would allow anyone to crack it with any computer out there today, the NSA has more stuff available and they still allow Top-Secret material to be protected with AES-256 (it has FIPS compliance), I doubt the NSA would do that if they thought there was any chance that AES could be cracked

Re:Wrong Agency

[Kjella]

If the NSA could have unlocked it for them, I believe the FBI would have been there in a split second. They probably already asked.

You must remember that the NSA is in the national security business. Revealing that AES can be broken would be beyond huge, it'd be bigger than the breaking of the Enigma codes during WWII. It'd also destroy the value, because afterwards everyone would migrate to something else. So even if NSA has that capability it'd be Top Secret and not revealed just to catch this guy. It's something they'd use in secret for signals intelligence and only reveal if it was absolutely necessary in defense of the United States.

Gotta ask, does AES have a backdoors that they can go "compell" an organization to give them the keys to it?

AES itself? No. Any particular encryption software? Possibly, but as TrueCrypt is open source that's unlikely. Same with the full disk encryption in Linux. As pure brute force, there's not enough energy in the sun to break a 256-bit encryption. But there can always be some kind of algorithmic attack. I think for AES256 there was an attack lowering the strength to about AES128 strength. Still plenty strong but you can't knew if there's a better one.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Virak]

2^(256/96) = ~6.35. So for your claim of it taking 96 characters to be true, those characters would have to be taken from a set of 6-7 characters. Which is an awfully questionable assumption. If you choose characters from, say, the full set of printable ASCII characters (95 characters), you only need log_95(2^256) = slightly less than 39 characters.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Chloe O'Brian-fan right there.

Re:Wrong Agency

[mikael_j]

I'm not so sure of the 6 bits for every character on the keyboard part.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzåäöABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZÅÄÖ1234567890!"#€%&/()=?+,.-;:_^'*~©@£$|[]±÷ç‘’æøßé®ü

There, those are the characters I can easily type on my keyboard, unless I counted wrong that's 205 characters which requires 8 bits per character.

But perhaps you meant only alphanumerics?

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA can crack 256-bit AES with ease? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Bengie]

A password based on a phrase where you substitute 3-4 letters for a few special characters and insert 1-4 extra characters into the middle of a word as to mess with the length, would be about has hard to break as the AES key itself. This would be an easy to remember password that would only take a few seconds to type and would render dictionary attacks useless.

"a large distributed attack should be able to 'crack' it with much less difficulty than reversing the AES itself"

Of course brute forcing a 256bit key could take 1,000,000,000,000 computers that could do 1,000,000,000,000 AES comparisons per second(aka, about 32,768 cores at 3ghz) about 1.8e+42 millennia. So, by "much less", so you mean to reduce the effectiveness to 1/10^42(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001%) would only take those 1 trillion 32k core 3ghz super computers 1000 years to break.

Assuming this person used a semi-decent password, the only way to get around this would be torture, key got cached/written down, bugged his keyboard, or general luck.

Fun fact told to me via a PHD in encryption. A 256bit symmetric algorithm that has no work around (AES has flaws that reduces its effectiveness) and using computers so efficient that it takes the theoretically smallest amount of energy to flip a bit, would on average consume most of the energy in the known universe to break a single key. (Think consuming all the stars in the Milkyway galaxy just a start)

"It is not crazy to think that the NSA could have this capability." I would say overly optimistic.

Re:Wrong Agency

[snowraver1]

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. True enough. I always forget HDs aren't actually exchanging any secret. doh.

Re:Wrong Agency

[mysidia]

So, you work for the NSA I take it, and want to make sure nobody believes the NSA's cryptology researches could have possibly found and exploiteded a critical (or designed-in) weakness of AES and other crypto?

Re:Wrong Agency

[mysidia]

Sorry... no you cannot.. 6 bits can only represent 63 characters.

The uppercase and lowercase letters + numbers alone are 62 characters.

There are 92 characters on the keyboard. And you need at least 7 bits.

zxcvbnm,./ZXCVBNM?asdfghjkl;'ASDFGHJKL:"qwertyuiop[]QWERTYUIOP{}`1234567890-=~!@#$%^&*()_+

Re:Wrong Agency

[PopeRatzo]

The FBI has never been a leader in computer technology. Other agencies such as NSA can probably crack that encryption with ease if not instantaneously.

I find it interesting that this news story appears, claiming that the FBI has "failed" to crack the encryption of these hard drives. A story like that doesn't just pop out of nowhere. I doubt very much that a reporter has been investigating the FBI's progress in a forensic investigation, and even more that the FBI would give out that information to an investigative reporter unless they wanted to.

What better way to insure the ability to read encrypted messages than to have a story in the news about how they are unable to decrypt a certain encryption method? Everybody thinks: "Oh look, the FBI can't crack method X! That's the one we should all use!" when the FBI has been cracking it all along. Even if it means they have to blow the prosecution of this Brazilian, it's probably worth the ability to read a lot of other peoples' messages without them knowing about it.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Kjella]

Wrong. There is a finite amount of matter and energy (and hence computing power) in the universe. With AES 256 these limits are already very close and possibly exceeded.

With no or infinitesimally low entropy spent per operation, it could still be infinite. Though with energy being quantized, the lower bound is believed to be kT ln 2. With that you can show that even the sun converted by E=mc^2 couldn't flip through a 256 bit register. Burning up the universe technically could, but I think we can say that's close enough.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Try all the words that are written in his office. The password may be under the keyboard, it may be also the serial number of the mouse (how many of you use this) ? Of course, it may be only in his memory: for example the beginning of a fairy tale, but there is a good chance that it is written somewhere. Do not use bruteforce, try to be smart: guess like in movies ;-)

Re:Wrong Agency

[tomhudson]

Even with supercomputer time, you're never going to crack anything the length of "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" (43 characters)

How about this: I don't need to crack YOUR password - I just need to come up with a transform that generates the same output as your password would have.

If I know that somewhere in that block of data is your email address. I can just start doing transforms at every offset - the ones that don't produce a match will quickly get eliminated (>99% will be eliminated on the first byte, ditto for subsequent bytes - think of it as a very efficient sieve of Eratosthenes tilted on edge). The ones that are left, continue. Eventually, I'll have many transforms and start positions that convert the binary data to the target phrase.

So I continue to apply the transform until either:

1. it's obvious that it was just an arbitrary piece of luck - it's not the transform I was looking for
2. I get the "good stuff" - it decrypts the whole block into something that makes sense,

I don't need your pass phrase, I don't need anything more than the maximum cycle length. I won't be able to decrypt all your stuff, but your email and spreadsheet data will probably be doable in a reasonable length of time, given today's hardware.

Re:Wrong Agency

[fishexe]

Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.

Wrong. There is a finite amount of matter and energy (and hence computing power) in the universe. With AES 256 these limits are already very close and possibly exceeded.

You should probably use html tags so it doesn't look like you're arguing with yourself. Unless that's how you want it to look.

Re:Wrong Agency

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't see what gives you that impression. I'm merely pointing out that, with truecrypt(or any conceptually similar system), there are two things needed to obtain the actual decryption key and decrypt the volume: the password, and the keyfile.

The most secure configuration involves storing the keyfile separately from the encrypted volume(on a smartcard, USB drive, etc.). For reasons of convenience, though, Truecrypt(and, again, most of the conceptually similar systems) support storing the keyfile in the same location as the encrypted material, which is much less of a pain because you only need a password for access, don't have to carry a separate device, and so forth.

If this guy used the system properly, his volumes will be secure. Guessing a 1MB(in the case of truecrypt) random keyfile, or breaking the encryption will be functionally impossible.

If he went with the convenient setup, then the feds have both his encrypted volumes and his keyfiles. They only lack his password. Guessing passwords is, barring extraordinarily good ones, many orders of magnitude easier than guessing encryption keys, and is frequently within easy reach of brute force attack.

Re:Wrong Agency

[X0563511]

I have no comment on the first paragraph, but the last two certainly seem to shout "I actually DO have a clue."

Re:Wrong Agency

[Kjella]

It's fairly easy to create a good, strong password for the really important stuff. I usually suggest the following:

1. Pick a phrase, any phrase "maryhadalittlelamb"
2. Add three "typos" with digit, capital and special character "marXyhadali6ttlel!amb"
3. Remember the typos as part of the words: "marXy" "li6ttle" "l!amb"

It'll never match a dictionary attack. It's too long with too large a character set to be brute forced, close to 128 bits. A hybrid attack possibly might but even if you know the phrase in 1. and exectly the method I told you guessing both the position and character will take about (21*20*19 * 10 (0-9) * 26 (A-Z) * 30 (the easy special chars) = 60 million permutations per phrase and in reality you won't know the phrase or if I did something slightly different, like adding two digits.

The most general fault people make is too short passwords, because they get annoyed by typos and because many systems don't handle more than 8 characters. That's too little if the attacker can run the password cracker locally, it's only good as network passwords where first off the network slows you down and second you can have slowdowns and lock-outs in place.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that include Alt+ characters?

Re:Wrong Agency

[Daniel_Staal]

On the other hand, if the NSA had broken AES, they'd have to worry that their counterparts in Russia/China/India/Country-of-Interest might have done the same, and therefore worry that all the government agencies that currently use AES as 'secure' aren't secure either. So they'd want it to be known that it was breakable, in order to get replacements in place.

If it were the best available, they might not release that they had already broken it, but even just a few comments about likely weaknesses (maybe even through third-party mouthpieces) would get others looking for holes and other options.

Re:Wrong Agency

[sjames]

Of course, practically any information has a use by date on it. In this case, he just needs it to hold out until he dies of old age.

Re:Wrong Agency

[jbssm]

Well, no. That's only if you use classical electromagnetic medium, witch is what normal computers use now a days. But, we now have Quantum computers, and although they don't have enough qubits to crack an AES 256 key today, they will surely have in the future. In fact when they have enough qubits they will be able to crack any classical encryption algorithm, no matter how big.

The funny thing about quantum physics, is just that is goes against all your common sense.

Re:Wrong Agency

[jbssm]

Well, in 10 years I'm sure we will have quantum computer with enough qubits that will crack this instantaneously. But hopefully they will occupied being used for science instead of this kind of stuff.

Re:Wrong Agency

[sjames]

Quite the opposite. IF the NSA can trivially crack AES, they want everyone out there to feel sure they can't. That way it stays in use.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Shadow of Eternity]

Which is, again, why we'll probably just keep someone awake for 3 days while we scream at them and hit them under the arms with a phonebook until they talk.

Re:Wrong Agency

[moreati]

I don't believe that's correct. AES is to the best of our knowledge uncrackable by the NSA with current computing resources. The flaws that have been discovered publically are minor and inconsequential. It is possible that the NSA has a practical attack against AES, and others but that they choose not to reveal this as GHCQ did not reveal their cracking of Enigma.

Practically this doesn't make much difference to 99.9% of us The NSA is unlikely to go after us little guys, the risk of revealing their secret would outweigh the benefit. However if you're ever holding the UN to ransom don't assume that AES, RSA et al are secure against a national government.

Re:Wrong Agency

[LarrySDonald]

The spooky thing here is the "Or can they?" factor. Certainly no way obvious of course and no way anyone else figured out, but then they had a good head start here. Oh the other hand, when you have $5 wrenches (as they do), they're probably more at an advantage with unbreakable crypto, seeing as us smalltimers will have a hard time using that strategy.

Re:Wrong Agency

[rotide]

You should add another layer to your tinfoil hat. The US Government standard is AES.

If AES was easily and by easily, I mean anyone has the capability to crack it in a reasonable amount of time and reasonable being within the timeframe of normal declassification, you really think they would be using it as their standard?

It's fun to think there exists the ability to just unlock any code (think Sneakers little black box), but the fact is that if that technology existed, it would be exploited and sold to the highest bidder ASAP.

But of course, "that's what they want you to think". If you thought this, add a third layer to that hat.

Re:Wrong Agency

[rotide]

Or the obvious, if it was known to be easily breakable, the US Government standard for encryption of Top Secret information would be something other than AES. But no, AES _is_ the standard for Top Secret information encryption.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has a vested interest in appearing a lot more competent or advanced than they are.

Wouldn't the reverse more likely be true? The NSA puts up mild fuss about export encryption to instill faith in would-be users they can't crack AES. i.e. "We made this beautiful, uncrackable algorithm... here you go general public!". Acres of Crays and Mathematicians and they can't break it? I'd bet you my next paycheck they can dice up an AES 1024 cipher text faster than TransOcean and BP can blow up an oil rig.

Check out the PBS Nova presentation, 'Spy Factory'.
 

Re:Wrong Agency

[russ1337]

i'm talking about truecrypts implementation of AES being FIPS compliant..... From the wikipedia page on FIPS

The requirements cover not only the cryptographic modules themselves but also their documentation and (at the highest security level) some aspects of the comments contained in the source code.

I recognize the algorithm is approved for use by govt agencies, however you cannot use an algorithm by itself.....

It would be nice if truecypt received 'the nod' from NIST. That would then allow my organization to use it.

Re:Wrong Agency

[mysidia]

I make my hats out of lead, with special paint to mask the electromagnetic signature, not TIN. The notion that 'TIN' would protect you from government mind control, eavesdropping, and other electromagnetic manipulation was a lie passed around -- actually TIN amplifies the effect, and makes the tin-hat wearers easier to track.

There are likely better materials to make your hats out of that are more effective, won't enable you to be tracked, and won't amplify the special signals....

I know the US government wants the citizens to think their standard is AES. Gives more credibility to the standard.

As for security measures under the most secret of government... who knows what the standard really is?? If they use something different from AES, or in addition to AES, or a modification to AES (such as special method of selection of key material to evade a certain vulnerability), I am sure they classify that top secret too.

The panacea of crypto standards for them would be one that has a backdoor when someone else uses it, but that when the government uses it, they get to pick a key that has certain properties that close the special avenues of attack completely....

Re:Wrong Agency

[steelfood]

Actually, this is a great test of TrueCrypt's ability to keep sensitive information sensitive. If the FBI finds a security hole in TrueCrypt, it will be fixed or compensated for, making it safer for everybody else who uses TrueCrypt. If the FBI can't decrypt this, then TrueCrypt has withstood the test of probably the most resourceful law enforcement agency there is.

Re:Wrong Agency

[AHuxley]

Re I find it interesting that this news story appears, claiming that the FBI has "failed" to crack the encryption of these hard drives.
Think back to the early days of Skype and Crypto AG.
Both show that with enough interest, security services can find a way in or around the challenges.
The public is reassured, in private its plaintext in real time.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, I have a good system for passwords, I just use Windows calculator, enter a number (phone numbers, birth dates, constants), apply a series of functions to it that generate a lot of random looking numbers, like sin, cos, ln, and then copy and paste. This can be repeated if you are really paranoid. Or open up python, import hashlib, and apply n iterations of sha512 hash to an easily remembered value, then copy and paste. This has the advantage of bypassing any hardware key loggers.

Re:Wrong Agency

[BLKMGK]

You do realize that NSA didn't design AES right?

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that the speed of computation continues to increase at best polynomially simmilar to what we've seen before, the algorithm won't be broken, or that no new technology will arise which happens to be efficient at solving just those problems the algorithm deems "hard".

Don't do that, cryptography is still a race. I wouldn't send encrypted traffic over public channels I'd want to remain absolutely uncompromised forever. And even when all theory is proven to be correct and no assumptions have been made whatsoever, the implementation might still be flawed.

Re:Wrong Agency

[gweihir]

Invisible to you, my blockquote tag hat one character spelled wrong and I was in a hurry.

Re:Wrong Agency

[gweihir]

The other funny thing about quantum computing is that it may well remain infeasible for significant problem sizes forever. Also your statement is wrong. For things like RSA, quantum computing helps. For AES it does not help at all.

Re:Wrong Agency

[jbssm]

For AES it does not help at all.

I admit I might be wrong, but isn't AES based in primes as well? If so, then quantum computing will solve it. About you statement that quantum computing might never reach an advanced enough state to solve complex problems. Well, I direct you to Quantum Entanglement in Photosynthesis recent findings. That clearly demonstrate that it's possible to maintain the kind of necessary states, no only in high quantities but also at room temperatures. And all this made simply by natural evolution. So yes, it's easy to see that sooner rather than later human technology will be able to use this as well.

Re:Wrong Agency

[gweihir]

I admit I might be wrong, but isn't AES based in primes as well?

You are wrong. No primes in AES at all.

As to the feasibility, typically a successful lab experiement takes 30-50 years into practical feasibility. For Quantum computing that means a demonstration of scalability far beyond todays laughable experiments. Keep in mind that these are several orders of magnitude smaller than needed to even give the minimal input data (a ciphertext and a plaintext block). Also keep in mind that this is for known plaintext only.

Re:Wrong Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Only for Merely Top Secret, though. You aren't cleared to know about the higher levels. :)

Try someone else next time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it to the NSA and wait five minutes.

The universe would suffer thermal death

[assemblerex]

before they break 256-bit aes. Even if computer power somehow went up magnitudes
the sun would go nova before they crack the encryption.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[DarkDespair5]

Right now, yes, but it is unwise to predict limits to technology.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop citing things inaccurately enough to be a myth.

The universe would suffer heat death. Before someone cracked the encryption. Using brute force. Via exhaustive search of keyspace. Utilizing techniques currently understood by science and the present beliefs of the laws of thermodynamics. FULL STOP. Hi, Quantum Computing....you ready yet?

You'll note many other possibilities now exist--including algorithmic weaknesses, birthday attacks, and such. I use a *good* password for a few things. But even based off of standard ASCII (too american to remember unicode), and assuming a space of the full upper/lower alphas and numerics, plus {-_+= [] }

with NO reasonable assumptions about distribution and entropy--gives me an entropy of 4.24bits per character. In practice it's probably only about 3 for me instead of the standard assumed 2.8.

Well in excess of the average (written english) language. Utilizing a password of approximately 30 characters, that's ONLY 132 bits of entropy. Well shy of 256.

There's all types of cryptographic techniques to expand a password into a suitable key--but that's just scattering the space and diffusing the entropy around some. 128 is crackable using current technology.

Sure, I can get a key with 256 bits of entropy--but it'll either come from a passage I've memorized in a book (not a very good one), or get stored on physical media. Weakness.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[moosehooey]

Please cite your source about cracking 128-bit encryption, I don't think this is true.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[bieber]

If they went at it by brute force, anyways. It may not be conceivable to either one of us, but there is always the possibility that they've discovered some mathematical technique that makes the decryption trivial, without having told the rest of the world. Very unlikely, of course, but not impossible...

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[swilver]

Why so difficult? How about I just generate a random 256-bit number for the key? Good luck attacking that when there's no relation to it and the real world at all.

All it takes is say:

- combining parts of two commonly found files on the internet.
- fully random, stored on a different, harder to find encrypted volume, but accessible by a 2nd, easier to remember, key.
- for the truly paranoid, base64 encode a random 256-bit number and memorize the resulting 40 characters.

Or a sentence that is long enough to give 256-bit entropy (~60 characters should suffice). Get one from a book, or just make up your own damn sentence/lyric/poetry or number sequence. This is not weak, as it contains the full entropy required. One might argue that the attacked only has to try all possible poetry, spelling variations, possible number sequence that are possible, but I'm pretty sure those exceed the 256-bit space as well.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comparison to quantum computing is dead wrong. Quantum computers are not currently known to be useful for brute forcing any algorithm.

The only reason they are useful for breaking things like RSA, is that we have large number factoring algorithms that work on quantum computers (Shor's algorithm). RSA was known to be vulnerable to large number factoring from the moment it was designed. In fact, as a one way encryption function, that's part of it's design. We assume that problem to be "hard", but with large enough quantum computers we can make it "easy". Brute forcing RSA was never considered as factoring the modulus is already more than an order of magnitude easier.

AES does not rely on a one way mathematical function for security, so talking about quantum computers breaking it is just silly. Weaknesses in the algorithm itself are the biggest threat to it. Your points about entropy per character are also rather silly as that's an implementation issue and has nothing to do with the AES algorithm. Also for the record, the character set of all keyboard enterable keys is about 6.6 bits of entropy with a random distribution. No idea where you got 4.24 bits from, but even random lowercase letters alone have more entropy per character than that.

assemblerex's point remains valid. Until computers are build from something other than matter, or occupy something other than space, it is unlikely that we will be "brute forcing" 256-bit keys.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Seth024]

Yes, but you can predict limits to the (currently accepted) laws of physics.

Ultimate Physical limits to computation, Seth Lloyd - Nature, vol 406, 31 august 2000 (hopefully not too outdated)

a quote from the article: "The ultimate laptop performs 5.4258 * 10^50 logical operations per second." (that's about 2^170)
You can definitely predict limits to computation. Even the most powerful machine would need a long time to go though all combinations of AES-256.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[simcop2387]

If we can crack 128 bit encryption then AES 256 should be easily breakable, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new_attack_on_a.html there's several attacks on the flawed key schedule in that reduce the search space to something like 2^110.5 instead of the 256bits that AES 256 implies. (this means that AES 128 is actually more secure in this regard, at least as currently understood).

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Vellmont]

before they break 256-bit aes. Even if computer power somehow went up magnitudes
the sun would go nova before they crack the encryption.

How about if a critical flaw is discovered in aes that produces an attack in 2^64 time?

How about if a critical flaw is is discovered in the implementation of aes that produces an attack in 2^32 time?

How about quantum computers advance to a usable level, and that 2^256 complexity is solvable in 256^6 time?

The first two are unlikely, since AES wasn't designed by fools, and has withstood much analysis. The 3rd possibility is the most intriguing.

The point being, the assumptions you're going on are that we know the same things we know now that we known is several years.

Right now we know computing power increases exponentially, so as you say that's out. But we also know that quantum computing is certainly possible, and has reportedly worked on very small scales. We also know that encryption algorithms and implementations of those algorithms sometimes fail catastrophically. The best we can say is that AES 256, with a good password can't be cracked with a conventional computer with our current level of knowledge about AES and its implementations.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Noughmad]

I went and found your article. (BTW, is reading articles that are not TFA ok here, or is every article a taboo?)

Can't you always make more of them, or put more energy into one? What's our best estimate for the total energy of the universe?

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[maxwell demon]

Well, they just have to use a true quantum random process to generate the key, and trigger a doomsday device if the key doesn't work. According to quantum suicide they'll then have the key. If the theory is wrong, they probably won't have the key, but it won't matter any more anyway. :-)

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[maxwell demon]

Your comparison to quantum computing is dead wrong. Quantum computers are not currently known to be useful for brute forcing any algorithm.

That's not completely true: The decryption could be considered a database lookup where "decrypts" is "in the data base" and "doesn't decrypt" means "not in the data base". Now the Grover search algorithm can search a data base in O(sqrt(N)) instead of O(N). Now that's not an exponential speedup like for factorization, and is easily countered by simply doubling the key length, but it means that quantum computers are not completely useless for brute force.

OTOH, are you sure that there's no clever quantum algorithm which can break AES without using brute force?

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Seth024]

It's been a while since I read the full article (and IANAPhysicist), but it was about a 1 kg laptop with a 1 liter volume. (don't think about a laptop, thing about a cube of energy that can calculate stuff really fast) Sure you could make a thousand of them and put them in a 1 m cube. And a billion of those to make a km cube, but that's only increasing the computations by 10^12 = 2^40, which would barely come close to breaking 1 AES-256 enrypted file in a a few days.

However, this is the absolute limit to computation. The computer already has an internal energy of E=mc^2 = 8.9*10^16J (for 1 kg) at 10^9 Kelvin.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

Haha. Except that you can't, because new ways will be found to compute. Your assumption is that classical means will be employed, and that is not a valid assumption.

Proof: It has been experimentally verified that a quantum computer can perform multiple calculations simultaneously. I am not aware of a theoretical limit.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

You seem to be assuming that brute-forcing is somehow a difficult computational task for quantum computers, as opposed to some factoring algorithm. On the contrary, it is trivially easy: all it requires is the incrementing of a counter.

But of course AES itself would actually have to be implemented in the quantum computer, or you lose any advantage that quantum computing might give. That would be the hard part. But as it's a straightforward and known algorithm, I don't see any particular difficulty.

Quantum computing is Turing-complete, so there is no theoretical reason that it could not be done.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

How about quantum computers advance to a usable level, and that 2^256 complexity is solvable in 256^6 time?

Grover's alogrithm would allow the search in sqrt(N)=sqrt(2^256)=2^128 time. I don't know where 256^6 is coming from.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

You seem to be assuming that brute-forcing is somehow a difficult computational task for quantum computers, as opposed to some factoring algorithm. On the contrary, it is trivially easy: all it requires is the incrementing of a counter.

Um, no. The speed-up is quadratic, so it's no easier than classically brute-forcing half the key length.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Vellmont]

My (possibly quite wrong) knowledge of quantum computers says that a quantum computer can reduce some algorithms that would normally take exponential time in polynomial time. I'm making a wild-ass assumption that AES could also be broken in such a manner. Whether that's true or not is beside the point, but merely to point out that a quantum computer is fundamentally different than the exponential speed growth of conventional computing of the last 30+ years.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

Um, yes.

I was not referring to Grover's algorithm. I was referring to quantum computation in general. That same article says about Grover's algorithm: "It provides a quadratic speedup, unlike other quantum algorithms, which may provide exponential speedup over their classical counterparts."

Further, that is merely the "speedup" (in big-O terms, not absolute terms) of the algorithms that come from using qubits for computation rather than classical binary computing. It has little relationship to actual "speed", especially when you factor in the potential for massive parallelism.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

To clarify what I mean: obviously, something on the order of O(N^1/2) is going to be more efficient than, say, O(logN) or worse O(N^2). However, if you have a million or more fast processors working on the problem in parallel, even O(N^2) or worse may be doable in realtime. So in the quantum realm big-O order alone does not dictate practicality.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

Pardon the multiple posts, but I have kept thinking of what seem to me to be better ways to explain what I mean.

Imagine you have a problem of O(N^2) [which is pretty bad... brute-forcing is at worst linear, averaging O(N/2)].

If your algorithm can dedicate N^2 processors to the problem, then in effect, that is to say in realtime, the majority of your computation time will be taken up setting up the problem. The solution will take a very short time. So if you have an efficient way to set up the problem, the solution is a microsecond away. Obviously there is a tradeoff here, and more research needs to be done.

I realize that is an extreme example, but there is nothing in theory preventing it. So if you can find a way to quickly and efficiently set up qubits to perform boolean or the equivalent logic in parallel (which has been done on a small scale), many of what are today prohibitively time-intensive computational tasks should fall like dominoes.

--
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible he is almost certainly wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, quantum computers could, if they existed at workable scale, do some things fast. But no, AES isn't one of them.

Happy?

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Anonymous Coward]

That's irrelevant in this case.

Here's why, with an example:

The people who do /secret/ crypto breakthroughs work for military or government intelligence. For them keeping the break secret is paramount, since once it is known their enemies will switch to something that isn't broken.

Thus you don't blow your breakthrough on a disk the FBI recovered from some guy who may or may not be a criminal. If you get an AES break that's reserved for real secrets, like foreign government or diplomatic messages and you don't tell anybody what you know, certainly not a court of law.

Towards the middle of WW2 Britain frequently had crypto breaks which told it which of its industrial cities were to be bombed next. It _could_ have used this information to try to evacuate those cities, saving lives. But German intelligence would undoubtedly have discovered that, and future breaks would then be at risk. So civilians were not warned.

These secrets cost lives. A guilty verdict for the FBI isn't worth it, even if the NSA broke AES years ago (which is almost unthinkable) they wouldn't use it on something like this.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

I'll just respond to all your posts at once. There is a section "Optimality" in the Grover's algorithm article. You should read it. (And please don't bother bringing up the point that it that article says that it is not proven that NP is not contained in BQP. Lots of things aren't proven, but if P=NP there is no encryption anyway.) In the field that people refer to as quantum computing, there is not, and almost certainly cannot be, any generic procedure to get exponential speed up.

In response to points you brought up: (1) This whole notion that quantum computing is the same as classical computing with extremely massive parallelism is grossly incorrect, whatever lay magazine article you read notwithstanding. (2) Specifically, uantum computing does not change the fact that you cannot have 2^256, let alone (2^256)^2, processors in the physical universe (you do not get a number of generic "processors" that is exponential in the amount of matter you have). (2) Some algorithms may be exponentially faster with quantum computing, but you were obviously claiming that every encryption algorithm can be brute forced, presumably subexponentially, by a quantum computer, which is a completely different claim.

It is a common fallacy to believe that there is rational expectation that quantum computing can brute force everything. Regarding Arthur C. Clarke, don't be a jerk. The frame of discussion has clearly been the current scientific field of quantum computing. When you said that "brute-forcing" is "trivially easy" for quantum computers, the assumption is that you have some actual reason to believe that is true, not that you're speculating about technology in the future that goes beyond current theory. Telling you that you are wrong is simply stating a correct fact about the field of quantum computing--it is not a claim that technology beyond this is a priori impossible.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Tack]

[...] that reduce the search space to something like 2^110.5 instead of the 256bits that AES 256 implies.

I think you're saying here that the referenced attack on AES-256 reduces the complexity from 2^256 to 2^110.5, but that's not true. Because of the birthday paradox, for a 256-bit key space you start at 2^128, and then more refined attacks reduce it from there.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Fnord666]

I think you're saying here that the referenced attack on AES-256 reduces the complexity from 2^256 to 2^110.5, but that's not true. Because of the birthday paradox, for a 256-bit key space you start at 2^128, and then more refined attacks reduce it from there.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the birthday paradox only applied when you were searching for collisions (any collision) within a space but not when you were searching for a collision with a particular value. In terms of the birthday paradox, it applies when the question is "What are the odds that any two people have a matching birthday?", but it does not apply when the question is "What are the odds that someone else has the same birthday as mine?".

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

These are easy to answer, so I will.

First, I want to repeat that I was NOT referring to Grover's algorithm. Nor, for that matter, did I claim that there is a generic procedure to make any algorithm exponential. (Which is a rather ridiculous statement on its face: if any algorithm could be made exponential, then why isn't Grover's?) What gave you the idea that's what I meant? It's not in anything I wrote.

Now, for the numbered points:

(1) I did not bring up the notion that classical computing and quantum computing were equivalent, parallelism or not. What I stated (and ALL I stated), was that quantum computing was Turing-complete. That means that any problem solvable via classical computing is theoretically solvable via quantum computing. And I was specifically referring to that in the context of an implementation of AES. I am well aware that we have thus far not done anything anywhere near that complex. I was saying that it is theoretically possible to implement AES with a quantum computer. It's quite a leap from that to "... quantum computing is the same as classical computing with extremely massive parallelism..." It bothers me a bit when people try to put words in my mouth.

(2) I admit that my example of N^2 processors was something of an exaggeration, but my explanations were only meant by way of illustration of the concept, not to be taken too literally. Apparently, from your post, you took me so literally that you didn't even bother to step back to see the large meaning of what I wrote.

(3) Where in the world did you get the idea that I was claiming that "every" encryption algorithm could be "brute forced"? Much less "obviously" claiming that? That is such a gross mis-reading of anything I wrote, I have to wonder whether maybe you were watching TV at the time and only reading every other word or something. The concept that I was trying to get across was that if you did have large-scale parallelism, quantum versions of the classical algorithms -- even after optimizing the algorithm for operation with qubits -- may not turn out to be the most efficient approach. I felt this statement was pretty clear: "So in the quantum realm big-O order alone does not dictate practicality." [emphasis added] Apparently I should have explicitly stated "big-O order of the classical algorithm does not dictate practicality." I felt that part was implicit given the context, but maybe not.

As for your last paragraph, you are far out of line. First, once again, I did not say or even imply that anything can "brute force anything". Who's being a jerk here? How arrogant. Apparently you don't even know what "brute forcing" is, in the context of an encryption method (and I never mentioned "brute forcing" in any other context!). Otherwise you wouldn't be accusing me of "obviously" saying that "quantum computing can brute force anything"... which is not even close to what I wrote. So you are showing your ignorance of the subject, or you were grossly misinterpreting my words, or both.

Here's a little lesson for you, just as a freebie (I certainly don't think you deserve it): "brute forcing" means trying all possible keys against an encryption. It doesn't mean trying all possibilities of the plaintext, or anything else like that. So in the classical scheme brute forcing is a strictly linear O(N) function of the size of the encryption key. In fact, given random distribution of keys, the solution will average N/2. As long as you have an implementation of AES to work against, then, all brute forcing requires is a simple counter to be incremented, to generate the possible keys. Which is trivially easy! And the keyspace can be divided into smaller parts and worked in parallel. Are you beginning to understand now? And don't come back claiming I am waffling: I clearly stated that you would need a quantum implementation of AES to work against. We all know that is beyond our present capability... but we also all know (or shou

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

Pardon me, I made a mistake in the editing of my reply. Let's try this one again:

"Some algorithms may be exponentially faster with quantum computing, but you were obviously claiming that every encryption algorithm can be brute forced, presumably subexponentially, by a quantum computer, which is a completely different claim."

This is an excellent illustration of what I was saying. In fact, all classical (i.e., non-streaming, non-quantum) encryption algorithms can be brute forced. If given enough time that is. (And of course time is the central issue. I made no claim that it could done quickly in every case.) And therefore they can be brute-forced by a quantum computer. Generally in less time. And that's just given what we know today. And in EVERY case, it is already subexponential. Even classical brute-forcing is linear [O(N)].

But if you really want to have any kind of debate here, you have to avoid ridiculous extremes (which my N^2 would be, given large N). It would be pretty easy to write a "conventional" encryption algorithm that could not be brute-forced: just ensure that it takes days to complete one task. (And in fact at least one compression/encryption scheme, I believe it is RAR, builds in a deliberate delay before returning match or no match, in order to discourage brute-forcing.)

But back to the issue: even though the things in the quoted statement are already true anyway, the fact is that prior to my last reply, I had actually made neither of the claims in that quote. You confused something in what I wrote and came up with that one on your own.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

Let's follow the discussion.

assemblerex started the thread: "The universe would suffer thermal death before they break 256-bit aes."

An Anonymous Coward responded, in relevant part:

Stop citing things inaccurately enough to be a myth.

The universe would suffer heat death. Before someone cracked the encryption. Using brute force. Via exhaustive search of keyspace. Utilizing techniques currently understood by science and the present beliefs of the laws of thermodynamics. FULL STOP. Hi, Quantum Computing....you ready yet?

Another AC responded to that (emphasis mine):

Your comparison to quantum computing is dead wrong. Quantum computers are not currently known to be useful for brute forcing any algorithm.

The only reason they are useful for breaking things like RSA, is that we have large number factoring algorithms that work on quantum computers (Shor's algorithm). RSA was known to be vulnerable to large number factoring from the moment it was designed. In fact, as a one way encryption function, that's part of it's design. We assume that problem to be "hard", but with large enough quantum computers we can make it "easy". Brute forcing RSA was never considered as factoring the modulus is already more than an order of magnitude easier.

AES does not rely on a one way mathematical function for security, so talking about quantum computers breaking it is just silly. Weaknesses in the algorithm itself are the biggest threat to it. Your points about entropy per character are also rather silly as that's an implementation issue and has nothing to do with the AES algorithm. Also for the record, the character set of all keyboard enterable keys is about 6.6 bits of entropy with a random distribution. No idea where you got 4.24 bits from, but even random lowercase letters alone have more entropy per character than that.

assemblerex's point remains valid. Until computers are build from something other than matter, or occupy something other than space, it is unlikely that we will be "brute forcing" 256-bit keys.

It's certainly up for debate what the first AC meant, but it's quite clear what the second AC meant: quantum computers do not usefully improve our ability to use brute force to break AES or anything else. Further, it's clear that the AC is claiming this lack of usefulness for brute force alone, using the example where factoring, a non-brute-force approach, is usefully improved by quantum computers. The AC is not saying that factoring is the only such possibility. I don't think I'm reading anything into this, but let me know if I am.

This is relevant because it was to post to which you initially responded, writing:

You seem to be assuming that brute-forcing is somehow a difficult computational task for quantum computers, as opposed to some factoring algorithm. On the contrary, it is trivially easy: all it requires is the incrementing of a counter.

But of course AES itself would actually have to be implemented in the quantum computer, or you lose any advantage that quantum computing might give. That would be the hard part. But as it's a straightforward and known algorithm, I don't see any particular difficulty.

Quantum computing is Turing-complete, so there is no theoretical reason that it could not be done.

Particularly in the context of the post you're replying to, it is reasonable to assume that you meant that brute forcing AES on a quantum computer would be usefully faster, maybe to the point of being feasible, not merely the trivial point that it's possible given unlimited running time.

I responded, linking to Grover's algorithm:

Um, no. The speed-up is quadratic, so it's no easier than classically brute-forcing half the key length.

The point is that Grover's algorithm is the optimal way to find a brute force match on

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

"Your comparison to quantum computing is dead wrong. Quantum computers are not currently known to be useful for brute forcing any algorithm."

This statement is pretty much irrelevant, because regardless of what THEY were saying, I clearly stated that I was referring to theory, not "current" capabilities. And really, even in any possible context being dealt with here, that is an asinine thing to state, because if we are really discussing our capabilities now, TODAY, then we are capable of very damned little, and almost nothing that has been discussed in this thread is even feasible. There would be little point in having a discussion at all.

But I am going to make a concession here. It is true that I was writing under the assumption that when brute-forcing, the encryption algorithm (assuming it can be implemented at all) is pretty much irrelevant (black box). But it is not. A encryption with a 512-bit key has indeed been brute-forced (about 7 years ago), but I wasn't accounting for the fact that it was RSA and weaknesses in its keyspace were exploited. You are indeed correct that a symmetrical 128-bit keyspace (i.e., AES-256 using Grover's) is impractical today. And on that score I stand corrected. But to say that it will remain that way in the future still assumes two things: that the encryption algorithm is without flaws (and historically none ever have been, so that is likely a flawed assumption), and that new techniques are not discovered... and again, history tells us that is likely a flawed assumption.

But it is that latter point, the one about new techniques, that was what I was mainly referring to. I admit that I was taking the "optimistic" view that new techniques would be discovered, but I deny that it is really optimistic. New techniques always HAVE been discovered. That is purely inductive logic, and could so could fail in that respect, it is on the order of "the sun has always risen every morning, therefore it will again tomorrow".

"Uh, yeah, that O(N^(1/2) was the reason my very first post said, "it's no easier than classically brute-forcing half the key length". In fairness, maybe you were watching TV at the time and only reading every other word or something."

Touché! :o) I had indeed missed that.

"If you're talking about cryptanalytic attacks on AES, that's not brute force. I gave the best possible quantum algorithm for brute force search in my first post."

No, I was referring to brute force, using hypothetical future techniques. Again, I thought I made that clear. And true, if a weakness is found that reduces the effective keyspace, I still call that brute-forcing because that is still the main technique being employed, and it follows historical usage. But in any case, this is where our actual point of contention is, and where I assert that you almost certainly err. It is "the best possible quantum algorithm for brute force search" known today. We have no reason to believe that we won't learn something better tomorrow. In fact, based on experience, it will be astonishing if we don't. And I don't just mean new techniques to exploit weaknesses of the encryption algorithms. I mean completely new ways to use these new tools. THAT is why I quoted Clarke.

I will try to clarify that further: when something new comes along, people (including scientists) almost invariably view it through their experience of older things. And while that is perfectly natural, it is not necessarily optimal in the long run. It's almost a cliché that they will not understand at first the true capabilities of these new things. As Henry Ford said: "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have told me a faster horse." I realize that what I was saying was speculation, but it wasn't baseless speculation.

"Make no mistake, we're both arrogant bastards."

I won't dispute you on that one.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

It is true that I was writing under the assumption that when brute-forcing, the encryption algorithm (assuming it can be implemented at all) is pretty much irrelevant (black box). But it is not. A encryption with a 512-bit key has indeed been brute-forced (about 7 years ago), but I wasn't accounting for the fact that it was RSA and weaknesses in its keyspace were exploited.

Well, I have to admit that people use "brute force" that way, but that's only because people use "brute force" loosely. They didn't try all 2^512 private keys: they factored the public key, and they didn't even use a brute force factorization like trial division! Nothing about that is brute force--it's just an instance of people using "brute force" to mean "best known attack".

This statement is pretty much irrelevant, because regardless of what THEY were saying, I clearly stated that I was referring to theory, not "current" capabilities. And really, even in any possible context being dealt with here, that is an asinine thing to state, because if we are really discussing our capabilities now, TODAY, then we are capable of very damned little, and almost nothing that has been discussed in this thread is even feasible. There would be little point in having a discussion at all.

I said I'm not talking about what's possible with current engineering limitations, which would indeed be pointless. It's pretty obvious that we're talking about different things by "theory". I tried to clarify that in response to the Arthur C. Clarke quote. I'll do so more fully. One sense of "theory" in the future unknown, where everything is possible except traveling faster than light, and maybe even that is possible. I consider this equally pointless. Sure, we might feasibly brute force AES using a quantum phenomenom uknown to current physics, but we might also break it with something unknown to physics that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

My sense of "theory" uses the fact that we have a mathematically well-defined theory of quantum computing at this point, in addition to actual physics research about building the things. For example, there's a complexity class BQP, and it doesn't change anything about the class if we discover that a new type of computation is physically possible (although it creates a naming problem if this also involves quantum mechanics), just as harnessing a physical phenonmenon to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial physical time would not prove that P=NP. This provides a useful basis for discussion. We can think about what might happen if decoherence problems are solved, and systems with hundreds, or thousands, or that matter billions of qubits are built. And, to continue with our current example, we can say that overcoming practical problems like decoherence is not itself enough to brute force AES. This talk about theoretical limits is thus useful, just as speculation can be. The only disagreement I continue to have is what I identified above: there's no reason to say that newly discovered physical possiblities allowing faster computation will be quantum in nature.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

"Well, I have to admit that people use "brute force" that way, but that's only because people use "brute force" loosely."

That was how it was used by both Bruce Schneier and RSA themselves in articles about the subject. I'll go with their usage. I realize that in a way that is "appeal to authority", but in this case there is little doubt that they are greater authorities on the subject than you or I.

"I said I'm not talking about what's possible with current engineering limitations, which would indeed be pointless. It's pretty obvious that we're talking about different things by 'theory'.

No, it isn't. I know what a theory is, and so do you. The difference is in the phrase "currently known". It is "currently known" that in theory (real theory, you have yourself written about it) quantum quantum computing could be quite useful in brute-forcing some systems. In that respect the sentence I quoted is just plain incorrect. If it was meant in a different way, it should have been written in a different way. I will concede that it may not be "currently known" to be useful against AES-256 and the like, but the sentence clearly says "any algorithm", which is just as clearly (ref: sources we have already discussed) incorrect.

"One sense of "theory" in the future unknown, where everything is possible except traveling faster than light, and maybe even that is possible. I consider this equally pointless.

And that's all fine, but that isn't the way I was using the word. At least I never meant to use it that way. If I have, please refresh my memory.

"Sure, we might feasibly brute force AES using a quantum phenomenom uknown to current physics, but we might also break it with something unknown to physics that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics."

Sure. And I was indeed discussing the possibility (which I consider to be extremely likely). But that was later, and unrelated to the other comments mentioned above. And that's what I was saying: I think you mixed what I was saying in the first part with what I was saying later. But I had intended them to be two separate issues. I am not saying it's your fault, maybe I did not convey my thoughts properly. But I am pretty sure we had a misunderstanding about that.

"My sense of 'theory' uses the fact that we have a mathematically well-defined theory of quantum computing at this point, in addition to actual physics research about building the things."

And I agree with that interpretation. I don't think I used the word "theory" in the context of possible future discoveries. If I did, it was a mistake. Again, my later mention of hypothetical future innovations was not intended in any way to refer to, much less contradict, actual present theory. I attempted to clearly label it as speculation. Perhaps I was not successful. But again I will add the caveat: this is in reference only to theory concerning what we already know about quantum computing, which certainly is not everything.

So wherever the "blame" lies, if such there be, we do not disagree so much after all. It was more of a communication problem than anything else.

"there's no reason to say that newly discovered physical possiblities allowing faster computation will be quantum in nature."

Again this is the one identifiable point where we definitely disagree. We do in fact have very good reason to believe that more -- and more surprising and "different" -- future discoveries are likely to occur in this area than in other areas of computing. The reason is that classical computing is pretty well-known and has been hashed over for a long time. On the other hand, quantum computing and its theoretical basis are relatively new, and rely on "edgy" physics.

And as evidence for that, I offer the fact that just a couple of weeks ago we received evidence from the Tev

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[jareds]

That was how it was used by both Bruce Schneier and RSA themselves in articles about the subject. I'll go with their usage. I realize that in a way that is "appeal to authority", but in this case there is little doubt that they are greater authorities on the subject than you or I.

Argggh. However, I think I'm right at least as to symmetric ciphers. I've never heard brute force refer to anything that doesn't treat the algorithm as a black box in that case.

No, it isn't. I know what a theory is, and so do you. The difference is in the phrase "currently known". It is "currently known" that in theory (real theory, you have yourself written about it) quantum quantum computing could be quite useful in brute-forcing some systems. In that respect the sentence I quoted is just plain incorrect. If it was meant in a different way, it should have been written in a different way. I will concede that it may not be "currently known" to be useful against AES-256 and the like, but the sentence clearly says "any algorithm", which is just as clearly (ref: sources we have already discussed) incorrect.

It is true that there is a sweet spot in key length where brute force by a classical computer is infeasible but by a quantum computer it is feasible in theory. What people usually mean by quantum computers not being useful for brute force is that, for any algorithm with adequate choices of key length, where the time is linear in key length or close to it, if key length N is infeasible for classical computers to brute force and you're worried about quantum computers, you can simply choose 2*N. (I have no reason to think you disagree with these statements, I'm just saying what people probably mean.)

And that's all fine, but that isn't the way I was using the word. At least I never meant to use it that way. If I have, please refresh my memory. [...] So wherever the "blame" lies, if such there be, we do not disagree so much after all. It was more of a communication problem than anything else.

I sure as hell do not plan on reading through again to figure out the blame and/or argue about it.

There is no sound basis today for saying we "know" how to do the most efficient quantum computing, even in theory. We don't even know how many different types of particles there are, or their properties!

The problem is the way physical laws are updated with new knowledge. Nineteenth century physics was correct in normal human situations. We know at least it was wrong at the samll scale, high speeds, or high gravity. It was the small scale issues that were technologically revolutionary (e.g., semiconductors and probably quantum computers at some point), because there are no inherent resource problems with building small things. Currently, QM really looks correct at normal small scale situations. Where things break down is high engergies and also high gravity is still not solidly understood. So, this is all very exciting for physics, but we won't end up with a Tevatron on everyone's desk. It's pretty clear I consider new computing due to new physics more science fictional than you (although it's clearly possible). Thus, I'm not inclined to say it has to be related to QM as opposed to small black holes or wormholes or the like.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's pretty clear I consider new computing due to new physics more science fictional than you (although it's clearly possible). Thus, I'm not inclined to say it has to be related to QM as opposed to small black holes or wormholes or the like."

Right, I understand. But under the circumstances, it's really just a matter of opinion. We don't have any solid evidence either way... but I choose to believe it is probable because past experience tells us that we seldom get the hang of new technologies until they have been in use for a while.

Just for example, take the lowly Crookes radiometer. It has been around for almost 140 years. For such a simple device, its history has been full of surprises. Since its invention, the explanation of why it works has been not just revised, but completely changed, at least several times. And each time we were sure we knew the answer. The latest theory was presented just a couple of years ago, and it was not just a refinement of the prior theory at all. It was completely different. You'll have to forgive me, I do not have a source to cite for that. I am operating from memory. But I am pretty sure I remember that correctly.

Re:The universe would suffer thermal death

[Jane Q. Public]

Oooh. Oooh. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/silicon-semiconductor-able-to-occupy-new-quantum-states.ars

Of course, this is not exactly a "fundamental shift", but the timing is serendipitous.

Maybe it was just random data

[petes_PoV]

If I wanted to create a decoy I'd just dump some output from /dev/random onto a disk partition and let the government try decrypting that for a few years (so long as they don't hold me in jail in the meantime). It seems that no matter how much you protest that a block of 0's and 1's isn't an encrypted file, it's just random noise, the only way to prove it, one way or the other, is when / if someone actually cracks it.

Could take a while.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[swilver]

How will you get out of jail though?

Give them the password? You can't since it is random data.

Tell them it was random data? Sure... we believe you! Now give us the password @#&*$!

This does show though that proving that something is not random data would be very important before they try waterboarding a password out of you :)

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Tumbleweed]

How will you get out of jail though?
Give them the password? You can't since it is random data.
Tell them it was random data? Sure... we believe you! Now give us the password @#&*$!
This does show though that proving that something is not random data would be very important before they try waterboarding a password out of you

It depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to hide your secrets to stay out of jail, this may be a bad way to do it, especially if they torture you.

If your goal is, however, to keep your drug lord employer's secrets, otherwise they'll torture and kill your entire family, that's another thing entirely.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[petes_PoV]

Yes. It does make the possession of random data illegal. Since "they" will assume it is encrypted, even though they can't prove it they will demand a password from you. Since you cannot comply you are deemed to have done something illegal. This is one of the few areas of law where you have to prove your innocence. And the only way to do that is to surrender a password (if there was, actually, one) which could just make you guilty of a different offence - depending on what it was you wanted to keep encrypted.

If there is ever a case along the lines of: "Well, m'lud the prosecution have not proved there are any encrypted files - it's just a block of encrypted data, so there is no case to answer" then I suggest we all follow it very closely.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[SirRedTooth]

I dont understand why it would be illegal, so the offence is harbouring 'misleading evidence'? What would be the crime? (im not criticizing merely asking)

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[icebraining]

This is one of the few areas of law where you have to prove your innocence.

Which of course, should be completely invalid, because it goes against the right not to self incriminate, which is in the legal code of many countries, including Brasil.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[petes_PoV]

For countries that require citizens to surrender passwords when subpoena'd the crime could either be contempt of court (for not complying) or refusing to provide a password if there's a specific law against that. I'm sure any half-competent government agency could turn this into a terrorism related situation, as well.

BTW, I'm guessing here - I'm very proud to say IANAL.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[hoytak]

It's often possible to determine how a pseudorandom numbers were generated by finding characteristic statistical biases. See http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.19.7206. The authors found significant biases under some tests for true randomness in a number of standard encryption algorithms, meaning that one could run these tests and likely distinguish between an AES encrypted bitstream and one generated some other way.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[mysidia]

Law enforcement has no way of knowing that "random data" isn't actually the password to something else?

Possibly a hard drive somewhere else, encrypted with a one-time pad, that no longer exists, or cannot be found by anywhere

It's like finding a pack of ammunition in a suspect's house, and deciding to arbitrarily hold them in jail, until they tell officers where their gun is.

If you have ammo, you must have a gun, right??

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are proud of your topical ignorance while sharing an opinion? Great, thanks for adding your share to the noise in this world....

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[jandoedel]

a better decoy is to encrypt some useless thing with some very strong encryption. in that case you CAN actually give the encryption keys to get out of jail.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't be too important, since violent interrogation and torture techniques are not particularly effective.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[ScrewMaster]

Wow, you are proud of your topical ignorance while sharing an opinion? Great, thanks for adding your share to the noise in this world....

That wasn't noise ... it was an encrypted message.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[phantomfive]

Instead of random data, encrypt the lyrics "This is a Triumph" over and over and over again. Not that I am willing to keep a random hard drive around just in the off case I might get arrested anyway.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[izomiac]

This does show though that proving that something is not random data would be very important before they try waterboarding a password out of you :)

Well, torture isn't really effective as an information gathering technique. OTOH, it's probably great stress relief, which they might need after realizing they've wasted weeks/months of computer time because you decided to be cute...

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

How will you get out of jail though?

Give them the password? You can't since it is random data.

Tell them it was random data? Sure... we believe you! Now give us the password @#&*$!

This does show though that proving that something is not random data would be very important before they try waterboarding a password out of you :)

You think you can just be held forever until the police decide to let you go? Glad I don't live in your country!

It varies from country to country, but generally you can only be held for a short determined period of time before the police either have to charge you and thus you get to court, or let you go.

Granted in corrupt societies, this is not always so, but you're in a heap of shit anyway if the police have anything to do with you in a corrupt society.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just dump some output from /dev/random onto a disk partition and let the government try decrypting that for a few years

Lawrence Waterhouse? Is that you?

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[ancient_kings]

What happens if crackers start to design viri/worms that secretly write random data to the unused parts of their infected hosts? Now you have a bazillion machines/laptops with random data in the unused parts of the disk. The fun really begins when those people's machines are under investigation (whether innocent or not), and the police want the password to unlock all your "secret data"? Good luck, you're fucked...

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Tuoqui]

Innocent until Proven Guilty. If they cannot prove you guilty they cannot hold you indefinitely.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[chgros]

What would be the crime?
Obstruction of justice?

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It does make the possession of random data illegal. Since "they" will assume it is encrypted, even though they can't prove it they will demand a password from you. Since you cannot comply you are deemed to have done something illegal. This is one of the few areas of law where you have to prove your innocence. And the only way to do that is to surrender a password (if there was, actually, one) which could just make you guilty of a different offence - depending on what it was you wanted to keep encrypted.

If there is ever a case along the lines of: "Well, m'lud the prosecution have not proved there are any encrypted files - it's just a block of encrypted data, so there is no case to answer" then I suggest we all follow it very closely.

Or maybe after you refuse for long enough, they accept your "random data with no password" explanation, and subsequently charge you with Tampering with Evidence and Interfering with a Police Investigation. Maybe even some charges for knowingly supplying false information to the authorities.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[NNKK]

Innocent until Proven Guilty. If they cannot prove you guilty they cannot hold you indefinitely.

Awww, you're so naïve it's adorable.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if crackers start to design viri/worms that secretly write random data to the unused parts of their infected hosts?

The grammar Nazis take them to the grammar concentration camp.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[PiSkyHi]

The best part is, you can only decrypt the other drives by first doing XOR with the randomised drive, but they don't which is which. Its not just going to take them years to discover one of the drives is a decoy, but that decrypting the other drives is dependent on knowing this.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[hottyson]

Torture would suck. They torture the poor guy for months. After the torture they get the passkey "eatmoglue"and decrypt the hard drive. What do they find? Only the Rick Astley misic video "Never Gonna Give You Up." What is left to do? Let him go and say sorry?

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

That last part is easy: just use pseudorandom data instead of random data. Statistically, they're hard (as in "almost impossible") to distinguish and you can easily convince anyone some block of seemingly random data is probably not encrypted data if you can show it can be generated by some simple PRNG.

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about this the other day after reading this article. On my computer I had a few TrueCrypt volumes set up, and I was lazy so I haven't removed them. Heck if I know what the password is to some of them.... is there sensitive data inside? NO. Would I be screwed if they asked me for the password? Definitely.

I suppose their first question would be: If it's random data, why is it encrypted?

Re:Maybe it was just random data

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just dump some output from /dev/random onto a disk partition and let the government try decrypting that for a few years

Lawrence Waterhouse? Is that you?

Most of the technical discussions were purposefully vague and/or simplified, but yes, Cryptonomicon was strongly grounded in sound information theory.

They should publish it as a DVD

[kawabago]

They should publish it as a DVD and within hours they'll be able to download the unencrypted file from a torrent! :o)

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[hilather]

They should publish it as a DVD and within hours they'll be able to download the unencrypted file from a torrent! :o)

Brilliant! Crowd sourcing for the win.

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[WindBourne]

Actually, if they just put the start of of the drive on open source, I would not be surprised to see it cracked within 1-2 months.

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

distributed.net's brute force attack on 72bit RC5 should give you an idea of the scale of the problem:
"88,499,918,552,956,920 Keys were completed yesterday (0.001874% of the keyspace)(0.001891% of the remaining keyspace)
at a sustained rate of 1,024,304,612,881 Keys/sec."

"we'll hit 100% in 52,895 days at yesterday's rate"

They've been running for 7.5 years, and have checked 0.872% of the keyspace.

http://stats.distributed.net/projects.php?project_id=8

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[UnknowingFool]

And if they name it "Secret Megan Fox, Natalie Portman threesome with grits" it should a matter of minutes before someone cracks it.

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[tomhudson]

Motivation.

If they said $10,000,000 to whoever comes up with the keys ...

Of course, then the drug lords would be bidding $20,000,000 ...

You'd have people embedding it in screen savers, games, apps, malware, botnets, etc.

Instead of having 3,000 people working on it, you'd have 300,000,000. To put it in perspective, that 142-year project would have been done in less than a day.

Re:They should publish it as a DVD

[WindBourne]

You assume a brute force because you think that is the ONLY way to get the answer.

OTH, I assume that there is another way to hit the key. Once somebody has a strong incentive, they will normally figure out a way around a block. In fact, I think that the feds and brazil SHOULD offer 1 million for the answer. Yes, we use it everywhere. OTH, I would rather pay out 1 million and be forced to change it NOW, then to find out in a war that it was crackable.

So where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy was accused, not convicted. Why are they looking at his hard drive? Besides that, no law exists to force him to produce the password, but they want the password anyway? That's their problem! Why is there some outcry over the situation?

Re:So where's the problem?

[hedwards]

Presumably, they're looking for evidence, and based upon the effort they're going to, I suspect that they might not have a case without whatever is on the disks. Assuming that there's something on there that incriminates him. Which is why the 5th amendment protects the key.

Re:So where's the problem?

[Timothy Brownawell]

I suspect that they might not have a case without whatever is on the disks. Assuming that there's something on there that incriminates him. Which is why the 5th amendment protects the key.

I always thought the 5th was more about the process of forcibly extracting new data from your head being far too dangerous and error-prone, rather than it being some right to not be incriminated.

Re:So where's the problem?

[hedwards]

Wrong, it's the right against self incrimination. Which is why one is allowed to plead the fifth when called to testify. It doesn't matter whether the penalty is beating or prison, the courts are not allowed to compel a defendant to testify against himself.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Emphasis mine. The interpretation there is that while one can be ordered to hand over the objects, one cannot be ordered to give up the password as that's tantamount to bearing witness against oneself. It's not really that far out there and it's an interpretation which has worked in court.

Re:So where's the problem?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Wrong, it's the right against self incrimination.

I'm saying, what is the reason for this right? There's no right against incrimiation; anything or anyone other than what's locked in your own mind is allowed to incriminate you, why is there an exception? The police are allowed to forcibly dig through your stuff if they get a warrant, what is the reason behind making forcibly digging through your mind completely prohibited? Keep in mind here that your stuff can sort-of be an extension of your mind in some cases, such as if you keep a diary or a to-do list...

The interpretation there is that while one can be ordered to hand over the objects, one cannot be ordered to give up the password as that's tantamount to bearing witness against oneself.

Not that long ago, there were a few stories here about some guy named Boucher who was being required to unlock an encrypted drive on his laptop, because he had unlocked it for the customs people and therefore his unlocking it for the court would not provide any new information. Where if you're required to unlock something that you haven't been seen unlocking before, that provides new information that yes you really are able to unlock it (which of course means that the court didn't previously know that it was asking the right guy, which is a danger if the court is allowed to try to beat it out of you).

Re:So where's the problem?

[ScrewMaster]

Presumably, they're looking for evidence, and based upon the effort they're going to, I suspect that they might not have a case without whatever is on the disks. Assuming that there's something on there that incriminates him. Which is why the 5th amendment protects the key.

Does Brazil have an equivalent to the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment? And actually, there's been quite a bit of dissent over whether or not the Fifth applies to passwords: a Federal judge ruled a while ago that it does so long as the password is in your head. He also ruled that if law enforcement can decrypt the data without need of the password (or manages to guess it) that's okay. Furthermore, in his opinion he said that if said password is written down or otherwise stored in plain text, it's also fair game. Actually, that was a fairly reasoned opinion, I thought, although IHAL (I'm Hardly A Lawyer.) But from what I've read on the subject, I wouldn't say it's cast in stone the Fifth protects such things at this point. If anyone has more information on this subject I'd like to hear it.

Re:So where's the problem?

[Imrik]

I believe the reason is so that if someone says they're innocent and is convicted of a crime they can't be convicted of perjury as well.

Re:So where's the problem?

[quanticle]

The reason for such a right is to ensure that people are treated as innocent until proven guilty. The Fifth Amendement (right against self incrimination) works alongside the Fourth Amendment (right against unreasonable search and seizure) in order to allow this.

Re:So where's the problem?

[517714]

The fifth amendment does not apply since this is not in the US. Brazil may have similar protections of the individuals rights.

Re:So where's the problem?

[Agripa]

I believe the reason is so that if someone says they're innocent and is convicted of a crime they can't be convicted of perjury as well.

Actually, they can. You have the right to remain silent but the US Supreme Court resolved the circuit split on the exculpatory "no" doctrine by ruling that an exculpatory no is not protected in the case Brogan v. United States. This is just another reason not to answer questions from law enforcement.

http://www.tjtaxlaw.com/tjn19980126.htm

weird

[roman_mir]

I thought this was not just a sound idea but a law.

Great stuff though, but expect some new laws by government that make it illegal not to provide your password/keys to the government upon a court order and if you don't provide it, expect an assumption of guilt and some extra punishment. I am not saying it's right, just saying that's probably going to be one of the outcomes of this.

Of-course the problem is that they got the drives physically (not that I am necessarily on the side of a allegedly corrupt banker, but I am not automatically assuming he is guilty of anything either.) Here is a good application for the 'cloud' (yikes) - keep your encrypted data so that nobody can even know it exists in the first place.

Re:weird

[swilver]

Sure, they can make a law to force people to give up their passwords... as long as they first prove that there actually WAS a password that would decrypt the data (and into what), as it might just be random garbage.

Re:weird

[arglebargle99]

A law to make me provide the password? --- "You know, I really would like to help you unlock those files, but I've completely forgotten the password. I'm pretty sure it was a full sentence from a book I read once, but I don't even remember the books name now."

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they can make a law to force people to give up their passwords....

Only if they can make the sentence for breaking that law worse than the penalty for whatever crime the perpetrator is accused of.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Cloud computing is just putting your data on a server cluster maintained by someone else. And all servers in the cluster will contain a copy of your data. Given that authorities can "tap" your internet connection they'll know your data is on the cloud, and from there it's just as simple as serving a warrant to the company, who will happily comply since they don't care about you. In fact that can happen and you can keep going on doing whatever it was you were doing, whereas if they had to physically take your media you'd (obviously) know that they were on to you.

Re:weird

[schwit1]

How is providing the password not a 5th amendment violation?

The spirit of the 5th amendment, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", is that no one should be forced to help prosecute themselves. The prosecution should be required to make its case as if the defendant were on another planet.

Re:weird

[ralphrmartin]

That's exactly how the law in the UK works right NOW.

Re:weird

[roman_mir]

This works for politicians and for very rich people, I doubt this will work for a run of the mill Joe Schmo. They will make it illegal for you not to provide the passwords and make the punishment severe, something like 5-8 years in prison for not providing it whatever your excuse is.

Re:weird

[roman_mir]

Seriously, when did a little or a big violation of the Constitution ever stop a government with an agenda?

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

but expect some new laws by government that make it illegal not to provide your password/keys to the government upon a court order

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't individuals in the United States have a right to refrain from self-incrimination?

Re:weird

[ProzacPatient]

We in the U.S. have the Fifth Amendment -- protection against self-incrimination, and luckily a federal judge ruled in favor of the fifth amendment in a similar case.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html

Unfortunately the direction that our country has been going (i.e. PATRIOT act, etc..) I don't know how long this protection will last.

Re:weird

[Bootarn]

Don't give them ideas!

Re:weird

[AK Marc]

You can be compelled to provide your papers, regardless of whether they are against your interests. Keys have been found, even if not written, to be papers in the USA. The keys themselves do not indicate anything for or against your guilt, and thus can't be testimony against you. They won't be provided in court (unless your passphrase is "I committed murder" or such) and so aren't under 5th Amendment protections. It's a 4th Amendment issue, and they filed all the paperwork they need to.

Re:weird

[iivel]

For the specifics: When the act of production is incriminating, it would, in itself, be covered by the 5th amendment. See United States v. Hubbell and United States v. Boucher for precedent. At this point in the US you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself (5th amendment) and therefore cannot be compelled to give up your key (as it is a "product of the mind" the very production of it would be incriminating).

Re:weird

[iivel]

It is a 5th amendment violation: I've posted it elsewhere in this thread but to keep it with the question
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699588&cid=32704672
Wiki links for the lazy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell

Note tough that the government avoided sending Hubbell to the US Supreme Court, so the validation of the appellate court isn't done ... and it will come up someday --- we'll see for sure then. For now though, there is precedent.

Re:weird

[Threni]

Truecrypt isn't known to be broken, but there IS a tool which can demonstrate that a truecrypt volume exists.

Re:weird

[ScrewMaster]

Too late

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times do I have to reply to that stupid XKCD comic?
Plausible deniability

Re:weird

[UpnAtom]

Correct, and forgetting your passphrase isn't an excuse... which is pretty disturbing consider how often I forget easy passwords.

It's in RIPA 2000, another one for the Great Repeal Act.

Re:weird

[swilver]

That would mean that a truecrypt volume is distinguishable from random data?

Re:weird

[Threni]

> That would mean that a truecrypt volume is distinguishable from random data?

A truecrypt volume is not random data, otherwise it would serve no purpose, except perhaps as a source of random data.

Re:weird

[quanticle]

Well, the problem with those laws is that they might run afoul of the 5th Amendment here in the US. The Supreme Court has already ruled that suspects cannot be forced into giving up passwords; that a password is "knowledge", not a "possession." Thus, forcing someone to give up a password would violate their rights under the 5th Amendment even if the police have rights under the 4th Amendment to seize the encrypted data.

Re:weird

[pjabardo]

They wouldn't make it illegal to not provide the passwords/keys because this is usually involves white collar crimes. In particular, this banker has got half the Brazilian parliament and 4/5 of the supreme court in his pay roll.

OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if governments approved a "protect the children" type of law. Something like if there is a suspicion of child abuse the passwords/keys must be provided. Now the regular guy can be safely prosecuted and corrupt bankers don't have anything to worry...

Re:weird

[toddestan]

A TrueCrypt volume is designed to appear no different than random data until the correct key is applied to decrypt it. If there is a way to determine if a bunch of random data is or is not a TrueCrypt volume without knowing the key, that would be a big deal.

Re:weird

[Threni]

There are tools on the market which claim to be able to detect them - tchunt and fitools. I've not bothered to test them - ISTR they they're either not free or don't come with source; i'm not going to pay and I've not bothered to test one on my windows vm. I also STR that there's something about 256byte boundaries in tc files which can help their identification.

Bottom line is that I don't care - I use tc to protect work secrets and personal stuff from people other than `the authorities` so I don't even use hidden volumes. If you do care then it might be prudent to augment tc's encryption by xoring the tc file against some random data - this will be uncrackable (with the usual assumptions...)

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was not just a sound idea but a law.

Great stuff though, but expect some new laws by government that make it illegal not to provide your password/keys to the government upon a court order and if you don't provide it, expect an assumption of guilt and some extra punishment. I am not saying it's right, just saying that's probably going to be one of the outcomes of this.

Of-course the problem is that they got the drives physically (not that I am necessarily on the side of a allegedly corrupt banker, but I am not automatically assuming he is guilty of anything either.) Here is a good application for the 'cloud' (yikes) - keep your encrypted data so that nobody can even know it exists in the first place.

well there is a law here that states that you have the right NOT to produce evidence against yourself hence, you can refuse a breathalyzer test (this has other consequences... ) and CAN commit perjury on your behalf and naturally reveling those possibly incriminating passwords to the police falls to that same category

Gui (from brazil) ps: its GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL

Reality Check

[baeyogin]

http://xkcd.com/538/

Re:Reality Check

[baeyogin]

If the records are that important, they could be archived for a little while until the encryption becomes easily breakable (for example, using quantum techniques). The $5 wrench will probably work long before then though.

Re:Reality Check

[WillRobinson]

Well, feels like this
http://xkcd.com/301/

Access codes?

[roman_mir]

The FBI failed to break the encryption code of hard drives seized by federal police at the apartment of banker Daniel Dantas, in Rio de Janeiro, during Operation Satyagraha. The operation began in July 2008. According to a report published on Friday (25) by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, after a year of unsuccessful attempts, the U.S. federal police returned the equipment to Brazil in April.

According to the report, the fed only requested help from USA in early 2009, after experts from the National Institute of Criminology (INC) failed to decode the passwords on the hard drives. The government has no legal instrument to compel the manufacturer of the American encryption system or Dantas to give the access codes.

Isn't that interesting, they can't get 'access codes' from the manufacturer. Why should there even be any access codes, is this just an assumption that there are codes like that for those encryption providers or is this a fact?

Re:Access codes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that interesting, they can't get 'access codes' from the manufacturer. Why should there even be any access codes, is this just an assumption that there are codes like that for those encryption providers or is this a fact?

I would say that is probably an assumption on the part of whoever wrote that article, whether through ignorance or because their tinfoil hat is making their brain run a little too hot I cannot say.

Re:Access codes?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what we get when a reporter or lawyer writes about a minimally technical subject.

US Laws?

[gsmalleus]

No Brazilian law exists to force Dantas to produce the password(s).

If this were to happen in the US, are there any laws here that would force us to give up our passwords?

Re:US Laws?

[Vinegar Joe]

The law of gravity. The feds hang you by your feet out a 5th floor window till you talk......

Re:US Laws?

[hedwards]

Not without violating the 5th amendment. If you can get the key via keylogger or malware it's fair game, otherwise they have to willingly provide it or you've got to crack it. But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.

Re:US Laws?

[bsDaemon]

They could probably charge you with contempt of court and hold you until you comply. Are you really willing to sit in jail forever for not giving up the password if the crime you're accused of committing has lower sentencing guidelines?

Re:US Laws?

[greylion3]

What if; you're innocent, but have forgotten the password?
You get to rot in jail for the rest of your life?

Re:US Laws?

[bsDaemon]

Can you /prove/ you /really/ forgot the password? Can you prove you're not faking? Without the password, you can't access the data either, so how can you prove you're innocent? Sounds like a trick to me. *slams gavel*

Re:US Laws?

[Rich0]

Welcome to the new US justice system. We don't call it presumption of guilt, we call it contempt of court. We don't call it denying access to a jury, we call it administrative law.

The US Constitution is a relic of a time that passed 50 years ago...

Re:US Laws?

[FrankSchwab]

And yet, the Government of the US, lead by the President of the US, fought a battle all the way to the Supreme Court of the US, arguing that they had the right to detain US citizens indefinitely without recourse to the courts simply because they called the citizen a name - "Terrorist" and "enemy combatant".

And the courts of the US haven't yet issued a ruling that this is against our precious constitution. Nor has our president, running on a platform of change, spoken out against this travesty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506265,00.html

So, if a Police official steps up to you, and says "I think you are a Terrorist and an Enemy Combatant; please give me your encryption keys to prove your innocence", your refusal means indefinite detention in a military detention facility, subject to military interrogation methods which include those which we ourselves have called war crimes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

A piece of paper protects no rights.

Re:US Laws?

[mysidia]

A person can only be held in jail on contempt of court if there is a chance they will produce the evidence.

Re:US Laws?

[hedwards]

That is true, however, it's the duty of any patriotic citizen to use the rights they have rather than turning them over because they were asked. What keeps those rights real is people using them.

Re:US Laws?

[omglolbah]

Yes you do.

This is why being presumed innocent until proven guilty is a somewhat important concept...

Re:US Laws?

[Rick17JJ]

I am the kind of slightly disorganized kind of person who would actually forget a rarely used encryption password or pass-phrase. On the various on-line shopping websites I use, I have occasionally had to click the "I forgot my password" button. The same was true when I briefly played around with encrypting several files on my home computer.

After briefly playing around with using an encryption on my Linux computer at home, I soon decided to not bother using encryption any longer. After that, I no longer made any effort to remember the pass-phrase. But, I have still not yet gotten around to deleting those several encrypted, compressed tar practice backup files that are still on my external USB hard drive. I should go ahead and delete those several old encryption practice files soon.

All I can remember is that whatever the pass-phrase was, it was probably about 16 characters long, with a fairly random mixture of upper and lower case letters, numbers, and punctuation characters. But, all the characters could easily be derived from what at the time seemed to be a fairly easy to remember, slightly amusing, easy to visualize, little sentence. I also had the pass-phrase written down on a piece of paper, which I misplaced about a year or two ago. It was not something found in a dictionary, or something easily guessed like my birth date or the name a girlfriend's dog.

Of course if I really had anything more important on my home computer than things like my social security number and a couple of old love letters, I would have kept on using the encryption program.I have also wondered what some judge would do, if they insisted that someone give them some old, hard to remember, forgotten encryption password.

Re:US Laws?

[ScrewMaster]

The law of gravity. The feds hang you by your feet out a 5th floor window till you talk......

Nope. That would violate the Fifth Amendment. You'd have to use either the fourth or sixth floors.

Re:US Laws?

[maxwell demon]

Well, there's the chance that you are lying, and actually do know the password.

Re:US Laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you pick 5th floor window by chance, or were you thinking the top floor of the Pentagon?

Re:US Laws?

[jfmiller]

What you say about unlawful enemy combatants is true assuming the following:
* you are not a US citizen
* you were captured outside the US
* you are not a member of any nations uniformed military services (you would then become a POW instead)
* you were not arrested by civilian law enforcement (including the FBI, ICE, or Border Patrol)
* no charges were presented against you in a civilian court

And sense the election of Pres. Obama:
* there is no country to which you can be safely repatriated

Re:US Laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this isn't certain. I'm not up to date, but see the following link where someone is being forced to decrypt his files before a grand jury.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10172866-38.html

Re:US Laws?

[AHuxley]

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/dieseltherapy.shtml
""Diesel therapy" consists of being put on diesel buses or airplanes and being transported from prison to prison for weeks and months at a time."
Read on for how it works.

Re:US Laws?

[potat0man]

But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.

I'm not sure this is right. The state can compel you to provide physical evidence, just not testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is not protected by the 5th amendment. For example, you can be compelled to provide finger prints, body measurements, DNA and blood samples. The court forcing you to provide those is not a violation of your fifth amendment rights. Additionally, if you have paper files or a bloody knife in your house and the state requests the items with "reasonable particularity" then the production of those items is not protected by the 5th amendment. In other words, the state can't demand that you hand over all of your files or every knife in your house. But they can demand you hand over a particular file or knife that they know to exist. So if they know certain files reside on your encrypted drive, demanding you give access to the drive would not be a 5th amendment violation, unless it is ruled that providing the password is testimony. But if the request is simply a fishing expedition looking for incriminating evidence, you would have a 5th amendment right to refuse, regardless if providing a password is testimony or not.

Here's a memo on a recent case.

Re:US Laws?

[FrankSchwab]

And so why was Al-Marri held for 5 years as an "enemy combatant"?
1. He was a legal US Resident, though not a citizen of the US.
2. He was captured in the US by a traffic cop
3. He was charged in a US court with fraud before being transferred to military custody.

Or are you saying that your unattributed list is an "OR" function, that is, if you fail any one of the tests you can be held? In which case, your number 5 is the scariest one of the lot.

some advice

[Anonymous Coward]

r0naldo1 *cough*

Re:some advice

[morgan_greywolf]

Or 'r0naldo7'.

Re:some advice

[mangu]

Neither of the Brazilian Ronaldos are in this World Cup. However, if you're looking for a password to a disk coming from Portugal, this could be plausible.

Validating technology

[gmuslera]

This say plainly that if you encrypt your info with the right, cheaply available technology, not even the FBI could get it, no matter what is it, or who you are. How much time now till some law around criminalizing the use of encryption gets approved?

Re:Validating technology

[kylemonger]

The FBI can't crack it, true, but crypto is rarely the weakest link. Can you prevent the FBI from installing a keylogger on the computer you use to access the drives? Can you prevent them from installing a camera somewhere that records your keystrokes, or records your computer screen? It sounds like they moved on this guy too soon. If you need a brick of encrypted data to make your case against a white collar criminal, that's just lazy police work. If you build enough of a case against him beforehand, he'll give you the key as part of a deal to reduce his jail-time. Then you can use that data to go after the next leve of baddies.

Re:Validating technology

[Sir_Lewk]

We've had encryption this good, or close to it, for decades now. And if looking back, if anything it is likely that laws concerning cryptography will continue to get weaker and weaker, as they have been doing. This stuff used to be heavily export controlled, not so much anymore. Just look at the history of PGP.

Re:Validating technology

[Securityemo]

Yes. Yes.

Re:Validating technology

[ScrewMaster]

This stuff used to be heavily export controlled, not so much anymore

Yeah, until the Feds finally figured out that other countries have good programmers and crypto people too. Cryptography really isn't something that any one nation can maintain a monopoly on.

Re:Validating technology

[Anonymous Coward]

This looks like they didn't expect the drives to be encrypted.
Note to governments: encryption exists in real life, not just in the movies, and it's rediculesly easy to do as well. With the amount of leaked data, maybe governments should try it themselves some time.

Re:Validating technology

[Sir_Lewk]

Exactly. The cat is out of the bag and even they realize it now. It's not going to be banned anytime soon, if they were even thinking about it we would have been moving towards it by now, not away from it.

Re:Validating technology

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was some whisteblower guy it would be a nice story, but it seems this guy may not be a shining example of the benefits of encryption

Re:Validating technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, suppose they're falsely claiming they can't crack it, because it's a high-profile case. If they really can crack it, and it becomes the default encryption method for many hackers, it could help them get their foot in the door for future investigations

Re:Validating technology

[AHuxley]

Re Cryptography really isn't something that any one nation can maintain a monopoly on.
Using Microsoft for state and federal agencies around the world helps with that issue.
All the award winning and first rate programmers and crypto experts wont save you from a MS install :)

Re:Validating technology

[ScrewMaster]

Exactly. The cat is out of the bag and even they realize it now. It's not going to be banned anytime soon, if they were even thinking about it we would have been moving towards it by now, not away from it.

Well, they can't ban encryption outright ... every major corporation and every major government in the world depends upon it. On the otherhand, I could imagine governments limiting the use of encryption by private citizens to certain officially sanctioned activities: online banking, for example. They could do that while simultaneously outlawing it for protection of personal data.

Re:Validating technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you prevent the FBI from installing a keylogger on the computer you use to access the drives? Can you prevent them from installing a camera somewhere that records your keystrokes, or records your computer screen?

Hidden cameras can work for both the attacker and the defender. They have to Break and Enter your home (some time when you're not there), install a hidden camera which looks at your keyboard, all without being seen by your hidden camera which is watching the same room.

He's a BANKER!

[mangu]

It's customary in Slashdot to ask if we are for or against someone.

This guy is a banker who has been accused of several crimes, but convicted only once, of trying to bribe an officer, Brazilian federal police "delegado" (I think the closest English translation would be "sheriff") Protogenes Queiroz.

Anyone can be accused of a crime and it's up to the state to prove him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

However, when a very rich banker is arrested and gets a writ of habeas corpus within fifteen minutes after his arrest from none other than the president of the country's supreme court... Personally, I don't think any reasonable doubt remains.

Re:He's a BANKER!

[Anonymous Coward]

Protogenes Queiroz is a jerk trying to make a name for himself in the Federal Police. He's a former Federal Police marshal due to it.

All he wants is to make a political career out of it. Dantas was one of the best in the field in Brazil but fucked himself up in a power struggle over the control of Brazil Telecom, a major Brazilian telecommunications carrier, with the Telemar, another carrier. Telemar has backing the Da Silva government for a long time and the government was just happy to allow Queiroz to make a mess out of the case.

Telemar invested USD 20 million in a company run by the Da Silva son. Also financed the movie Son of Brazil telling the story about the President life. If this isn't bribery, I don't know what is.

Any judgement in the Supreme Court is done by a random member of it, including the Court President. If you got any evidence the random choice as biased to make to the Court President you should call a newspaper because you got a major scandal.

Let Dantas free and put the mafia who runs the Brazilian government in jail.

Brazil is just a backwards banana republic. I'm longing to get a away out of this hellhole.

Re:He's a BANKER!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe in this crap you wrote. You're welcome to leave Brazil anytime. You'll not be missed. Actually, you'll free to leave Earth.
Why in hell would anyone mod you insightful? That's beyond me.

this is obviously disinformation :)

[Anonymous Coward]

... if I were the FBI and I could decrypt TrueCrypt, I'd not admit it and hope everyone keeps using it.

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[mysidia]

TFA says:

The article in English mentions two encryption programs, one Truecrypt and the other unnamed.

Truecrypt might be the weak one that they'have already defeated, but the guy was smart and layered even stronger cryptography, that they can't beat, and don't want to name?

Another possibility is they are trying to break into a decoy file, which is truly random data, encrypted with an OTP from a hard drive that they never found.

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[I cant believe its n]

Correctimundo.

You need to refrain from acting on a lot of truly useful information in order to make the big targets believe they are safe.

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[Spatial]

'Obviously'? I'd love to hear how an unfalsifiable assumption fits that criterion.

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[swilver]

How are you gonna use it as evidence in a court case then though?

FBI: "That's correct your honor, we waved our magic wand and it produced this evidence clearly showing that the accused is guilty ... "

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[perryizgr8]

Truecrypt might be the weak one that they'have already defeated, but the guy was smart and layered even stronger cryptography, that they can't beat, and don't want to name?

i know, he must have used the greatest, toughest crypto in the world: bitlocker by microsoft!!1

Re:this is obviously disinformation :)

[mysidia]

I see... and since Bitlocker relies on a hardware TPM module, which is also used by DRM technology, the FBI employees can't break it without producing devices in violation of the DMCA's anticircumvention provisions, and going to jail... brilliant!

Van Eck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should just let him use it and "van eck" his ass... errr his computer's ass. Did they try hookers and drugs? That always works with our government people - agencies, representatives et. al.?

Re:Van Eck?

[perryizgr8]

perhaps you could stop believing any drivel you read in a novel. van eck is a fantasy and i can see lots of problems with it becoming practical.

Re:Van Eck?

[Anonymous Coward]

fantasy... really...
just because YOU can't afford to do it, does not mean someone else can't...
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0147047048.shtml
http://jya.com/emr.pdf

such fantasy...

Re:Van Eck?

[moortak]

Van Eck phreaking is not a fantasy. It may rarely be a practice risk, but it is a real technique. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf http://jya.com/emr.pdf Warning pdfs

Re:Van Eck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've personally seen on TV a fuzzy but readable image of what an 8-bit Amstrad CPC computer shows on its monitor in the next room over. Granted, Amstrad was known for using the cheapest possible parts and probably skimped on EMI shielding, but it did demonstrate the principle rather convincingly.

Re:Van Eck?

[moortak]

That really should say practical risk.

Weakest link?

[Alwin Henseler]

No, AES has been independently vetted and attacked by multiple security organizations. The only flaws that have been discovered in the algorithm are minor and inconsequential.

That only matters if the implementation used doesn't have any important flaws. And a password wasn't stored anywhere by accident or 'overlooked mechanism' (caches etc). And the chosen keylength was enough to make brute-force attack unfeasible. And nobody else has/leaks password.

They don't have to crack a tried & tested algorithm, they only have to find the weakest link. Surely there's many links, most of those weaker than the algorithm itself.

Re:Weakest link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck cracking my 60+ character passwords I use just with a brute force.

Re:Weakest link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there's many links, most of those weaker than the algorithm itself.

Guess not. Two governments have failed to break it. Hows that work with your belief that recovery will always be compromised by some 'link'?

Re:Weakest link?

[DarkDespair5]

Indeed, to paraphrase, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are different". The weakest link in security is always the human element (coders, users, attackers...). I was just clearing up the misconception that the algorithm is weak/backdoored as conjectured by another poster.

Re:Weakest link?

[ScrewMaster]

Surely there's many links, most of those weaker than the algorithm itself.

Guess not. Two governments have failed to break it. Hows that work with your belief that recovery will always be compromised by some 'link'?

They just didn't apply enough governments.

Not a surprise

[gweihir]

Modern encryption done right cannot practically broken at this time. However, many people do it wrong. You need something like 64 bit passphrase entropy to be secure, better 128 bit. As English gives only about 1.5 bit/char, that means a secure passphrase should have something like 90 characters with a minimum of around 45 characters. With random digits/letters, you can do better, for example 12 digits/letters just fulfill the minimum requirement.

This guy is not American

[mangu]

If the NSA could have unlocked it for them, I believe the FBI would have been there in a split second. They probably already asked.

It could even be that the NSA was asked first and failed, then they sent it to the FBI.

Daniel Dantas was involved in many shady operations, including one when the MCI company, which has used some funny accounting, bought Brazilian Embratel.

It was the Brazilian federal government which asked the US government for help in cracking that encryption. International cooperation among different countries law enforcement agencies often happens in crimes involving international money laundering, so probably the US state department went to some effort to fing which agency was the most likely to decrypt those disks.

Re:This guy is not American

[Courageous]

You have to understand these things from the point of view of resource allocation. Given various things like intercepted diplomatic cables, signals of interest, and other things of interest to national security from verified threat nations, are you going to allocate your scarce resources to a financial crime when someone clamoring for the same resources may in fact be a senior in an intelligence agency or a multistar general in the armed services who could potentially blame your misuses of resources directly on the death of someone working in the US national interests should you make such a decision? HELL, NO.

C//

given time

[zonker]

As long as there are no statute of limitations preventing it they can still go after him. Given enough time 256 bit encryption will likely become weak enough to brute force it as computing power grows. It might take 20 years but it's possible. That is assuming he's still around by such time...

Re:given time

[swilver]

I don't think you completely understand either how encryption scales then or how computer power scales at the moment.

Computers typically have become around twice as fast every two years orso in recent history, although this is becoming quite hard to keep up nowadays.

Most encryption algorithms on the other hand can be scaled up arbitrarely high, by just changing a parameter. Brute forcing 128 bit AES vs 256 bit AES is not a factor two harder. It is a factor 2^128 harder.

Want it even harder? Just change the algorithm (or a parameter) to use 512 bits. The only reason AES 128 and AES 256 are in use at the moment is because experts agree that these are highly unlikely to be brute-forced in the near future, not because 256 bits is somekind of practical limit. You could create a 200000 bit encryption algorithm if you wanted to, but there is simply no point.

Here we go again.

[penguinman1337]

How much you want to bet that this is going to bring up the whole law enforcement backdoor issue again? Where they try to get laws passed requiring all makers of encryption software to put in law enforcement backdoors so they can instantly get at your personal files. This issue seems to keep popping up whenever they run into problems like this. And, btw, what is the FBI doing going after a brazilian national anyway? Isn't that slightly out of their jurisdiction?

Re:Here we go again.

[lzmbr]

> And, btw, what is the FBI doing going after a brazilian national anyway? Isn't that slightly out of their jurisdiction? From TFA: "According to the report, the fed only requested help from USA in early 2009, after experts from the National Institute of Criminology (INC) failed to decode the passwords on the hard drives." It's badly translated, but "fed" is the Brazilian Federal Police and INC is a Brazilian institute.

Re:Here we go again.

[lzmbr]

Oh god, I forgot to select "plain old text".

> And, btw, what is the FBI doing going after a brazilian national anyway? Isn't that slightly out of their jurisdiction?

From TFA: "According to the report, the fed only requested help from USA in early 2009, after experts from the National Institute of Criminology (INC) failed to decode the passwords on the hard drives."

It's badly translated, but "fed" is the Brazilian Federal Police and INC is a Brazilian institute.

Plausible Deniability

[fractalspace]

RTFM for TrueCrypt:

It may happen that you are forced by somebody to reveal the password to an encrypted volume. There are many situations where you cannot refuse to reveal the password (for example, due to extortion). Using a so-called hidden volume allows you to solve such situations without revealing the password to your volume.

Re:Plausible Deniability

[the_other_chewey]

Evil guy (lifting the $5 wrench): "OK, and now you'll give me the other password."

In other words: Hidden volumes are only useful if nobody knows they exist. Yes, security by obscurity.
Trouble is, you can't prove a hidden volume isn't there. This feature actually enables useless wrench applications...

Re:Plausible Deniability

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it plausible to believe that someone would have a partition that is encrypted and a significant other part of their drive as 'random data' that is specifically not written to?

After all its 'plausible' that every true crypt encrypted hard disk is actually just random data with a true crypt boot loader written to the first few sectors...

Wrong continent

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLO, in Portuguese.

They should use a pt_BR, not a plain pt dictionary. In Brazil it's GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Obligatory

[guyminuslife]

The XKCD for that

Re:Obligatory

[Nutria]

These post-9/11 children are such know-it-all idiots.

Randall Munroe is exactly right, except that traditionally it's referred to as rubber-hose cryptanalysis.

Their approach is wrong

[mysidia]

They should not be trying brute-force against an AES key.

They should be working to find where the key materials is stashed. Nobody memorizes a 256-bit key.

It might be stored using a weaker symmetric crypto algorithim... then they should be trying to brute force the passphrase.

Or hold the guy in prison until he produces the evidence.

Assuming the contents of the hard drive is believed to contain evidence of a crime, committed by him, or someone else, he still has to produce that evidence, no?

Re:Their approach is wrong

[iivel]

"Nobody memorizes a 256-bit key. " ... I use one of my favorite paragraphs in literature (not on boot, but on my financial record volume that I rarely access). It covers the 256bits needed.
Also: I don't know the law in Brazil, but if this were in the US he absolutely would not have to provide the key as evidence (5th amendment and all that) ... see my earlier post.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[corychristison]

256-bit == 32 characters. Depending on encoding, anyway. (8bits == 1 byte. 1 byte is generally one character.)

MD5-ing a password/phrase is a way (amongst others) of producing a 256-bit encryption key.

I wouldn't recommend it but I see it out there enough to know that's what some people do.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[muckracer]

> MD5-ing a password/phrase is a way (amongst others) of producing a 256-bit encryption key.

MD5 is 128-bit. You'd need SHA256SUM. And that's assuming, that the hash input...the 'password' you end up hash'ing is also 256-bit since the hash is no more secure than the plain-text being hashed.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That is only 32 characters. I have several memorized right now.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[corychristison]

MD5 is 128-bit.

Yes, it is. But what I said was I have seen in the wild that some people just run a password through md5 (most cases the HEX encoded string is what is referred to as 'md5'). 16bits encoded in hex is 32 characters (256bits).

Sorry for the confusion, I should have clarified.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[muckracer]

> some people just run a password through md5 (most cases the HEX encoded string is what is referred to as 'md5'). 16bits encoded in hex is 32 characters (256bits).

You're still confused. MD5, incl. its output, is 128-bit. It consists of a string of 32 characters, where each character can be one of 16 options (a-f, 0-9). That gives us exactly 4-bits per character * 32 = 128-bit! :-)

Re:Their approach is wrong

[corychristison]

A 32 character string (ex: the HEX output of a MD5 hash) is regarded as 32 characters when you're passing it as if it were a password. Thus it is reading each character individually. That is thirty-two 8-bit characters. 32 * 8 = 128bits.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between feeding a HEX-encoded string as a password vs using a binary string encoded in HEX.

Re:Their approach is wrong

[muckracer]

> A 32 character string (ex: the HEX output of a MD5 hash) is regarded as 32 characters when you're passing it as if it were a password. Thus it is reading each character individually.

I know. Likewise are, for example 32 zeroes regarded as, well, 32 distinct password characters.

> That is thirty-two 8-bit characters. 32 * 8 = [256] bits.

Not sure where you get the 8-bit value for a hex character from. Since it's base16, it has exactly 4 bits of entropy, not 8. That's why you arrive at your faulty conclusion, that somehow a 128-bit hash becomes a 256-bit hash.

multiple encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

people always make breaking encryption sound easier than it is. One could encrypt multiple times using multiple methods - then it would be almost impossible to guess what was used and decrypt something

encrypt(A) -> B
encrypt(B) -> C

decrypt (C) -> B
decrypt (B) -> A

etc.. etc..

Re:multiple encryption

[emt377]

They only have to look at the code to see what algorithms are used. Breaking two ciphers takes twice as long as breaking one, which is more or less equivalent to adding one bit to the key - i.e. not much difference. Also, it doesn't have to be two different ciphers, it could be one encrypted twice using one cipher with two different keys.

Alternate Partition?

[HTMLSpinnr]

One of the great features of TrueCrypt is the whole alternate partition/segment idea. One password gives access to real data, while another (a duress password) would give some other access to an alternate segment. Put some benign documents in the alternate partition, and then under threat of water boarding, hand out the duress password. Assuming this all works, they find nothing, you go home.

Granted, I'm not encouraging this idea for criminal activity, but rather for truly sensitive data that shouldn't fall into the wrong hands.

Re:Alternate Partition?

[symbolic]

I suppose it's also possible to include multiple partitions on a single drive - any of them may or may not contain encrypted data. How is anyone going to make a determination as to which of these do and which don't?

Re:Alternate Partition?

[bill_mcgonigle]

and then under threat of water boarding, hand out the duress password.

But what about the third password they want? What do you do then?

Turtles.

Re:Alternate Partition?

[miaDWZ]

One of the great features of TrueCrypt is the whole alternate partition/segment idea. One password gives access to real data, while another (a duress password) would give some other access to an alternate segment. Put some benign documents in the alternate partition, and then under threat of water boarding, hand out the duress password. Assuming this all works, they find nothing, you go home.

But all this just brings you back to the random data vs. encrypted data dilemma. If you give them the duress password and they don't find what they're looking for, they will assume they've been given the wrong password and continue torturing you.

What's even worse is if you're really innocent and give them the "real" password but they incorrectly conclude you gave them the duress password 'cos they can't find incriminating files and continue torturing you to give them the "real" password.

Re:Alternate Partition?

[emt377]

duress password

There can also be a self-destruct password - which gives access to the decoy volume but begins a hard erase of the real data in background. You'd write that on a piece of paper and keep it in your wallet for a hostile to find. I'd expect the FBI to be a bit too savvy to bumble into traps like that.

Re:Alternate Partition?

[tehcyder]

Don't be stupid, once they find only the harmless documents, they'll just get annoyed and come back to torture you for the real password.

In other news

[mysidia]

The FBI has not solved the P=NP problem, either

Or implemented practical cold fusion

Or developed a practical AIDS vaccine

Or found the cure to cancer

Or solved world hunger

Or stopped the oil spill

They failed to do all these things.

Re:In other news

[iivel]

Oh mod this up funny + witty + very true! I wish I hadn't already posted :) .

Re:In other news

[Asic Eng]

Well yeah, but just because an encryption method is theoretically secure doesn't mean that the implementation is bug-free and unbreakable. The interesting part is that the FBI apparently hasn't found a way to break it (through other means, *not* brute-forcing).

duh.. needs a GUI interface in Visual Basic..

[ipX]

I'll create a GUI interface in Visual Basic...

Re:duh.. needs a GUI interface in Visual Basic..

[cosm]

...see if I can track the IP address! **i'm retarted'**

FBI in Brasil

[tokul]

Banker is from Brazil and evidence was seized there. Why FBI was involved? It is not their jurisdiction and they are not encryption experts. Maybe those journalists should learn something about NSA before writing "article" about failed decryption.

Re:FBI in Brasil

[John Hasler]

> Banker is from Brazil and evidence was seized there. Why FBI was involved?

Presumably because after failing to crack the encryption themselves the Brazilian cops contracted the job out to the FBI.

> It is not their jurisdiction...

Irrelevant. They weren't arresting or prosecuting anyone: just undertaking a technical task. It's similar to sending some rolls of film siezed as evidence to a commercial lab to be developed.

> ...and they are not encryption experts.

They employ many such.

Re:FBI in Brasil

[kmike]

Banker is from Brazil and evidence was seized there. Why FBI was involved? It is not their jurisdiction and they are not encryption experts. Maybe those journalists should learn something about NSA before writing "article" about failed decryption.

I'm wondering the same...

Easy - redefine torture

[sjbe]

In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used (Federal Constitution, Art. 5, Inc. LVI).

Which is conveniently and apparently easily circumvented by the government redefining the specific act of coercion to not be torture and hence not illegal.

Furthermore the FBI is not under the jurisdiction of the Brazilian government.

Re:Easy - redefine torture

[slartibartfastatp]

Furthermore the FBI is not under the jurisdiction of the Brazilian government.

The original article doesn't even cite the FBI. The * Brazilian * Federal Police can't decrypt Daniel Danta's harddisk. Somebody should get the portuguese class money back =)

Re:Easy - redefine torture

[sjbe]

The original article doesn't even cite the FBI.

You actually read the article? You realize this is slashdot?

Re:Easy - redefine torture

[slartibartfastatp]

Gotta work my social perception. Sorry for that, will try to play along next time =)

What was he using

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta wonder what he was using to encrypt his hard disks? Bitlocker? TrueCrypt? File Vault? Whatever it was this would be a great testimony for that product.

Fancy "Dictionary" System?

[fishexe]

From TFA:

According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.

Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.

Re:Fancy "Dictionary" System?

[Chapter80]

From TFA:

According to the report, the FBI and the INC used the same technology to try to break the password. It is a mechanism called a "dictionary" - a computer system that tests password combinations from known data and police information.

Nobody tell the reporters that when trying encryption, "dictionary" is just a fancy computer word for...an actual dictionary.

If only there were a book where we could look up the definition of words that are within quotes.

I that is some carp moives shown in reeducation

[Joe The Dragon]

I that is some carp moives shown in reeducation / hidden lock ups as torture?

In Soviet...

[geirnord]

In Soviet Russia, KGB decrypts you!

Who will make them obey the Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

> But the constitution as it stands, does not allow the authorities to compel a suspect to produce the files.

The Constitution may not allow it. But these days, they simply violate it and blame the terrorists for making them do it.

The used a Portuguese dictionary...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but it came from Portugal and was full of "factos".
(for non-portuguese speakers, it's like using "colour" in USA)

Send him to Gitmo - Obama ain't closing it

[Anonymous Coward]

Friday night "leak" from "the most transparent government ever".

Just use "enhanced interrogation techinques" ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that, like waterboarding, are not torture in USA :)

Re:Compression

[maxwell demon]

That's also a form of encryption: The decompression algorithm is the key. It's just that many people use widely available keys, and moreover indicate the used key in the file name.

Red Herring ?

[equex]

So exactly how often does a government agency admit to failure at an issue this big ? I'm reading this as "FBI just managed to break TrueCrypt so we hope all you people use it."

So its illegal

[nurb432]

Doesn't mean you wont spend the rest of your life in a box. You might be 'right', but was it worth it?

"Same in America"

[devloop]

>>>"In Brazil, proofs produced by illegal means cannot be used"

>>"Same in America, and usually ..."

As oppossed to Africa where Bazil actually is.

Re:"Same in America"

[calyphus]

Opened your mouth, uttered a Palin, now we know you don't know what you're talking about and give you no credence. (check a map next time)

Encryption Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 2 years ago i had the feds raid my house, i used DriveCrypt Plus Pack (www.securstar.com) to encrypt my drive, they returned the drive a year later saying the drive was corrupted.
keep in mind the feds have thousands of cases and usually hire outside companies to crack it, they are limited by time and budget.

just goes to show the myth of any gov agency can crack commercial encryption software.

You know what immunity means, right?

[Sycraft-fu]

Immunity means "Immunity against prosecution." So this is not the sort of thing they can use against someone. They can't say "You are immune from prosecution, now testify about your crimes. Ok, you testified, now we are going to charge you with those crimes." The person was given immunity from prosecution, can't prosecute them for those crimes.

The point of immunity is securing someone's testimony against another party. So lets say you and I had committed some crimes together. However your part was pretty minor, you'd done little things and you weren't the guy planning things. The prosecutors decide I'm the one they really want, you are just a petty crook they don't care about. However, you won't testify against me, not because you are scared of me but because in doing so you'd admit to your own crimes. They say "Ok we'll grant you immunity. Any crimes you testify about committing, you can't be prosecuted for." You then go and testify to all the stuff I've done. I go to jail, you do not.

Immunity isn't some magic way to make the 5th amendment disappear. What it does is protect someone's 5th amendment rights, while allowing them to testify. The 5th amendment says you can't be made to testify against yourself. So, if you are immune from being prosecuted there is no violation of your rights. Your testimony is not being used against you.

For the same reason they can't say "Ahhh! We had our fingers crossed! Deal doesn't count!" In that case your lawyer would argue to have your testimony, and any evidence as a result of it, suppressed. You only testified because you believed it could not be used against you, and there is a written deal to that effect. If they revoke the deal, then that violates your rights. A judge would then suppress the testimony, and all evidence that comes from it (US courts use a "poisoned fruit" idea that evidence that comes from a violation of rights itself cannot be used). Your lawyer then has the court dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.

Re:You know what immunity means, right?

[quanticle]

mmunity means "Immunity against prosecution." So this is not the sort of thing they can use against someone. They can't say "You are immune from prosecution, now testify about your crimes. Ok, you testified, now we are going to charge you with those crimes." The person was given immunity from prosecution, can't prosecute them for those crimes.

That only works if the only evidence of the crime is from the person's testimony and the crime is the only one that the person can be charged with. As soon as you have multiple witnesses and multiple charges its not so simple anymore.

For example, consider the following scenario. There are two people, persons 1 and 2, each charged with two crimes, A and B. Now, what the prosecution can do is give person 2 immunity from charge A, so that person 1 gets convicted. Person 1, likewise can be given immunity from charge B, so that person 2 can be convicted. Voilá, both people are convicted, despite having "immunity."

Re:You know what immunity means, right?

[Sycraft-fu]

No, not so much. For one, any competent defense attorney will ensure that any immunity offer extends to all related crimes. So suppose you rob a convenience store. In the process of the robbery you hold a gun to the clerk, force them to the floor, and tie them up. There are multiple other crimes there, like assault with a deadly weapon. For any immunity offer, your lawyer would demand it for everything. They aren't going to say "Sure immunity on the robbery charge is fine, never mind that testifying about it will get you convicted of other things." Again if they tried to force it, that would be a 5th amendment violation.

Then there's the fact that related crimes must be tried together because of double jeopardy. The state can't get around that by repeatedly charging you with new crimes for the same event. For example suppose you break in to someone's house, kill them, and burn it down. The state cannot charge you with murder 2, then when you are found not guilty, bring you back with a charge of manslaughter 1, then when that fails charge you with arson, and so on. They can charge you with all those things, but they have to bring it all to trial at the same time if ti was all part of the same crime.

Again: Immunity is NOT some end run around the 5th amendment. If it was, judges would just not allow it. On the prosecution side of the isle, it is not about trying to find tricks or technicalities that allow you to violate someone's rights. The courts don't go for that. They very much require that the spirit of the law be obeyed. You can't come up with a convoluted scheme and then try and say well technically we didn't FORCE him to testify against himself. The judge will say "Nope, you violated his 5th amendment rights, it's all out."

What you may be thinking of is deals, which are different. Trials are expensive, so when possible the state would rather not have one. They'd rather get someone to plead guilty. Often what they'll do in that case is drop various charges. So if you agree to plead to robbery, they drop the assault charges and so on. That is perfectly legal. There is no rights violations, you are pleading guilty, and the agreed upon charges are being dropped.

As far as I can tell

[Sycraft-fu]

There is no law in the US that compels you to give up your password. You may be thinking of Britain, which does indeed have such a law. However in the US just keeping your trap shut would just be good enough. Also, the burden of proof is on the state in criminal cases. So, if the claim is that the data is simply random, they need to prove that the data is NOT just random before they would be able to force anything, even if the law allowed it.

Of course in any case the answer "I don't recall," works plenty well (note how often that is used by people in major investigations). They can't say "Yes you do!" as there's no way to prove it. People forget shit all the time. So they say "What's the password to this," you respond "I don't recall that being encrypted," there's little they can do to prove otherwise.

Double reality check

[Sycraft-fu]

That doesn't work in the courts, at least not in most free countries. Testimony obtained through coercion, and any evidence resulting from that, is inadmissible. You might notice that police do not just torture people to extract confessions. Why not? Should work very well, torture someone enough they'll confess to whatever you want, no matter if they did it or not. Solves cases really easy. Well, because the courts are going to take a real dim view of that. Their confession and all evidence as a result of it would get suppressed and the case would evaporate. What's more, the police involved are likely to get charged with a crime themselves.

So sure, the XKCD thing is a fairly realistic scenario if you had, say, the location of a nuclear weapon that was going to detonate in a US city and kill a lot of people. In that case, I can see the rules going out the window. They don't so much care about convicting you as finding and disabling the device. However for a criminal prosecution? Ya that kind of stuff goes over not at all.

Just general Slashtard AC paranoia

[Sycraft-fu]

You might notice that there are more than a few paranoid people on this site. They are convinced that the government is extremely evil, oppressive, and thus obviously extremely capable of doing amazing things that nobody else can. So the government can crack all encryption (even though the best research shows that isn't possible), the government can recover data from any harddrive unless you Gutmann wipe it (even though the best research shows a single overwrite screws over any recovery on EPRML drives). They believe the government is so amazingly competent and evil that they can organize thousands of people to plant explosives in the WTC and just make it LOOK like planes brought it down, and keep all that hushed up, and so on.

They believe that AES is "obviously" crackable simply because the public has it. They need no more evidence than that. It is paranoia, not facts, that they operate on.

Personally, I find it highly likely the government can't crack AES. They use it for classified data, it was designed to help secure our nation's financial system against foreign attack (one of the NSA's missions, they aren't only signals intelligence). It is probably the most analyzed crypto system in history, and nobody anywhere has found a major weakness. I'm going to cast in on the "it's secure" side of things.

Re:Just general Slashtard AC paranoia

[Dilaudid]

I agree wholeheartedly. Fantastic to see the viewpoint known as "common-sense" being represented in a YRO debate (one day maybe it will even get modded up). While it's true that (for example) GCHQ is full of super clever mathematicians, and when they break a cipher it would be a waste to tell anyone, global academia is a free and open network of collaborating individuals - sound like anything we've heard of before? If it's true that all bugs are trivial given many eyes, then all weak encryption standards should be trivial, given the many experts working on encryption. Since the industrial revolution society has seen a shift towards the power of individuals over the power of authority, this is just a part of the trend. And why not try trusting and working with governments? They are the people that brought civilisation from nothing to the industrial revolution. Without them we'd all be living in mud huts.

What will it yield?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they they break the encryption, they'll only find his mp3 collection and some seasons on House and Lost...
And the emails he sent to his mom.

Re:What will it yield?

[CompMD]

"Even if they they break the encryption, they'll only find his mp3 collection and some seasons on House and Lost..."

So he gets handed over to the RIAA and MPAA who sue him for $975 trillion.

why do you need encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

why do you people need all this encryption anyway, the only thing I have of importance to encrypt is my list of passwords to internet and banking sites, unless your doing illegal stuff I dont see the purpose of it

Re:why do you need encryption

[JockTroll]

To fuck up thugs paid with our taxes who should investigate real goons instead of messing with citizens who have a right to be left alone until they commit a serious offense?

It's our way to take a big, smelly dump on their loserboy faces.

Re:why do you need encryption

[RebootKid]

That argument is tantamount to saying, "Only the guilty need privacy."
The argument falls apart when I say, "Okay, so let me video tape you in the shower and put it on the Internet."

I store bank records on my PC. You better believe it's encrypted to hell and back.
I have files on my customers on my laptop. Again, encrypted to hell and back.

There are tons of completely legal and legitimate reasons people want, deserve, and should have encryption that is uncrackable.

Re:Just use "enhanced interrogation techinques" ..

[Anonymous Coward]

... that, like waterboarding, are not torture in USA :)

Waste of effort and waterboarding is considered torture in the U.S. Guantanemo Bay was not, last time I checked, in the U.S. That doesn't make our use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique any more justifiable, but at least get your facts right.

Anyway, regarding encryption: just have your legal system presume that anyone who is using encryption is guilty of something serious. Then, if they don't turn over their passwords, convict them of that something serious. I would think that in the majority of cases, that would be sufficient. Of course, we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty here.

Why not?

[SuperKendall]

If waterboarding is not torture, then you are willing, I presume, to undergo it for two or three days? If not, fuck you.

It has no lasting physical damage. And we already do waterboard our own military personnel to instruct them on what they might face if they were captured. Also the people that use it as a technique are required to also have it done to themselves in order to understand the physical and psychological effects is has.

So yeah, I'd be willing to be waterboarded. And like all techniques meant to momentarily weaken your resolve rather than actually hurt you, no I don't consider it torture.

Re:Why not?

[fluffy99]

If waterboarding is not torture, then you are willing, I presume, to undergo it for two or three days? If not, fuck you.

It has no lasting physical damage. And we already do waterboard our own military personnel to instruct them on what they might face if they were captured. Also the people that use it as a technique are required to also have it done to themselves in order to understand the physical and psychological effects is has.

So yeah, I'd be willing to be waterboarded. And like all techniques meant to momentarily weaken your resolve rather than actually hurt you, no I don't consider it torture.

Physical torture no, but it does qualify as psychological torture with potentially long lasting effects. Just check the citations in the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding. As such, it's a violation of the Geneva Convention (which the US govt claimed didn't apply). Go get a video of you being waterboarded and we might take you seriously.

Re:Why not?

[potat0man]

And like all techniques meant to momentarily weaken your resolve rather than actually hurt you, no I don't consider it torture.

So by that standard you'd be willing to watch your son's testicles get crushed since it only weakens your resolve and doesn't actually hurt you. Good to know you're ok with things that only weaken your resolve in case we ever need some info from you.

Re:Why not?

[Golddess]

While I disagree with GP, that's a rather poor example. You are still physically torturing someone in order to get information, even if where the information comes from isn't the person being physically tortured.

Re:Why not?

[tehcyder]

like all techniques meant to momentarily weaken your resolve rather than actually hurt you, no I don't consider it torture.

You are a vile human being, I just hope to God you're not in a position to carry out your philosophy on other people.

Re:Why not?

[alexo]

So yeah, I'd be willing to be waterboarded. And like all techniques meant to momentarily weaken your resolve rather than actually hurt you, no I don't consider it torture.

Talk is cheap.

Arrange for a demonstration, like these guys did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV4a2_appig

You'll change your mind pretty quickly, like those guys did.

Re:Why not?

[SuperKendall]

Three people that were against it before they tried it do not a convincing argument make.

As I said, plenty of people in the military are required to undergo this treatment. I think the problem is that you and other people are so far removed from real torture these days, you don't even understand the concept.

Re:Why not?

[SuperKendall]

Go get a video of you being waterboarded and we might take you seriously.

Only if you agree to say 100% of the time that waterboarding is not torture if I get waterboarded and claim it's not torture when I am done. Are you seriously willing to say that? Because that's basically what you are asking me to do the other way round, when I'm pretty sure you'd go back on your claim to take me seriously.

Re:Why not?

[alexo]

Three people that were against it before they tried it do not a convincing argument make.

That's three people that argued waterboarding was not torture and changed their minds pretty quickly after they experienced it. Also note the law enforcement officer in one of the clips saying that the average person can endure it for 14 seconds.

As I said, plenty of people in the military are required to undergo this treatment. I think the problem is that you and other people are so far removed from real torture these days, you don't even understand the concept.

No, the problem is that you have no idea don't understand the concept. Torture is not what you see in the movies. Torture is simply finding the limits of your tolerance and bringing you to -- and beyond -- that point repeatedly until you break and will do anything to make it stop. Every person is susceptible to some leverage, be it physical, emotional, psychological, financial or otherwise. Every person has a limit to their tolerance. Find the right combination, apply it -- that's torture.

Your argument about the military is bogus. They undergo it once, under controlled conditions, knowing that it will stop when they push the panic button or, at worst, at the end of the exercise.
When I was in the military (not the US one), I was required to spend some time in a room with CS gas. IIRC, I did it three times. It was not a fun experience, but it was not "torture" because I knew that it was "safe". However, having experienced the effects of CS gas on the human body firsthand, I can use it as a torture device. All I need to do is to convey three simple points to you: that I will not stop upping the intensity until you give me what I want, that I will stop once I verified to my satisfaction that I got what I want from you, and that, while I prefer to keep you whole (for my own purposes), I don't really mind permanently damaging you in the process. Perhaps even killing you, but not right away, since it would give you a way out.

Torture is mostly psychological -- it's not the tool, it's how you apply it. And what makes waterboarding so effective a tool is the millions of years natural selection had to produce drowning-averse humans. Trust me, you'll do anything to prevent asphyxiation (otherwise, you'd be an evolutionary dead end).

Back to the clips. Notice how the demonstrations stopped the moment the subjects pushed their respective "panic buttons"? Notice the repeated instructions about code words and suchlike? That is what separates it from "real" torture.
The military exercises are similar in the respect that those who undergo them know they are safe.

Now, I noticed that you avoided the subject of trying it yourself. I do urge you to do so, it is quite illuminating.
To get the maximum effect, hold out the longest possible time and, after it is over but while the experience is still fresh in your mind, contemplate how would you feel if the person administering it would have continued for 20 seconds after you indicated you wanted them to stop.

How can they assume the wrong password though?

[SuperKendall]

they will assume they've been given the wrong password and continue torturing you

That's only true if they know for sure that data is what they were looking for. But if there's any doubt, all they know is there was an encrypted block and the key you gave them unlocked it. There's no reason to continue asking you for a password since as far as they know, that data is useless.

Re:How can they assume the wrong password though?

[miaDWZ]

they will assume they've been given the wrong password and continue torturing you

That's only true if they know for sure that data is what they were looking for.

But they must have some idea of what they're looking for. It seems unlikely someone thug is going to break into my house or police detain me for 'no reason whatsoever', find an encrypted volume and ask me for the password.

What seems much more likely is that police detail you for suspected tax evasion or securities fraud and go looking for your second set of books. When they ask for your password and open up the volume to find a set of books which are completely legitimate they're going to go "Well, obviously he gave us the wrong password" when in fact maybe you did give them the real password and you've been falsely accused.

Re:How can they assume the wrong password though?

[Asic Eng]

Right, but even if in the applicable jurisdiction you are required to give them the key, you have now complied with the agreement. Nobody can prove you haven't. Assuming you are in a civilized country that's already sufficient to protect your data. It doesn't work in othe

Need English to Portugese dictionary

[FragHARD]

I need to know what the Portuguese word is for 'PASSWORD"

Get someone from 24

[colonel spalding]

It shows you what total BS that show is--always being able to crack encryptions in no time. Getting facts out of a prisoner in hours rather than months. I could be wrong, I've only seen a few episodes but that is what happened in the few I watched.

One proven method...

[Anonymous Coward]

No Brazilian law exists to force Dantas to produce the password(s).

His testicles in a vice would surely produce the desired results. One way or the other.

Your approach is wrong. . .

[JSBiff]

The *correct* approach is to setup the arrest so that you don't arrest the guy and sieze the computer while the encrypted volume is not mounted. Instead, you keep him under surveillance, and when he has the truecrypt volume mounted, you storm in and arrest him before he can unmount it, then copy all the data from the already mounted volume to a thumb drive, or external hard drive.

Or. . .

Secretly install a keylogger somewhere on his system to log the password for the truecrypt volume, and DON'T arrest the guy till you've got the passwords.

Or. . .

Secretly install software on his computer which, when any volume is mounted, starts to transfer the files over the Internet to a police file server.

Or. . .

I've heard of research (seems like it was posted to /. a few years ago) that indicated it would be possible to pickup keystrokes made on a computer which was plugged into a wall power socket, by like tapping the lines outside the residence or something.

Anyhow, my point is, if the police are careful about how they go about the arrest and siezure, they might not have to 'defeat' the encryption. The problem with encryption is at some point, you have to enter the password and decrypt the data. Either the password can be captured, or the decrypted data can be.

Re:Your approach is wrong. . .

[mysidia]

The *correct* approach is to setup the arrest so that you don't arrest the guy and sieze the computer while the encrypted volume is not mounted. Instead, you keep him under surveillance, and when he has the truecrypt volume mounted, you storm in and arrest him before he can unmount it,

Kind of tough when your target is paranoid, and unmounting it just requires powering off the computer or hitting a panic button.

Secretly install a keylogger somewhere on his system to log the password for the truecrypt volume, and DON'T arrest the guy till you've got the passwords.

Kind of hard when the target is paranoid and boots his system from media he caries on him at all times, the OS volume itself is on a separate truecrypt volume, and highly secure to prevent adding unsafe executables

Secretly install software on his computer which, when any volume is mounted, starts to transfer the files over the Internet to a police file server.

ditto above

I've heard of research (seems like it was posted to /. a few years ago) that indicated it would be possible to pickup keystrokes made on a computer which was plugged into a wall power socket, by like tapping the lines outside the residence or something.

It was just research. A truly paranoid target would have taken precautions against compromising emissions, and have filters in place, which he would verify before mounting the volume (while in his secure area: read, faraday cage).

Surveillance against such a paranoid target would also be extremely difficult. As seeing through walls is kind of hard, especially when they are electromagnetically shielded.

Vids?

[Type44Q]

If the Brazilian stuff I've seen is any indication, they don't need a password, they need to download the right codec... ;)

Are you there, Abby Sciuto?

[grikdog]

Gotta love it. Truecrypt used intelligently is impervious to dictionary attacks. The trick is keyfiles, which can be used together with garden-variety "weak" passwords. It also has hidden volumes, which have a couple of annoying gotchas, which provide "plausible deniability" (it says here). One nice trick with keyfiles is to use steganography to embed a signifant blob of /dev/urandom output into a photograph, which then hides in plain sight along with hundreds or even thousands of other similar photographs (this circumvents keystroke loggers) -- or on a thumb drive or cd-rom. Shred the cd-rom (or smash the thumb drive with a hammer, etc.), and Truecrypt volumes become indecipherable, because the actual key is literally unknown (and unmemorizible by ordinary human brains). Assuming the banker get his drives back (or his backup!), and recovers his copy of the cd-rom bearing the keyfile from his friend in Freeport who thinks it's a bootleg Grateful Dead concert, Truecrypt brings it all back like Lazarus. The Linux version uses an optional cascade of three keys (AES 256, Serpent and Twofish) and the (optional, but recommended) Whirlpool hash algorithm. Steganography is not part of Truecrypt in any version I know.

Tin foil hat on

[jplopez]

Perhaps they did break it, but they prefer to send a message saying "Ok, dudes, it's still ok to use AES-256"...

Better our future murderers escape...

[Anonymous Coward]

Daft quote.

If they really were the proportions of guilty people escaping conviction the world would be run by psychos (maybe it is).

Putting a famous name to a quote doesn't make it any smarter.

I would rather there be a risk - as there is - that some innocent people will be evicted from time to time, than let a significant proportion of villains go free. Certainly not one hundred in every one hundred and one.

Plausible deniability!

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

An alternate partition is not a bad idea, but you must be able to prove that the partition you bring up when a gun is being pointed to your head is the partition you actually use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/truecrypts_deni.html

testicles in a vice decoder algortihm?

[Anonymous Coward]

guaranteed to crack something.

Which amendment?

[bandmassa]

The article finishes with the mention that Brazil has no law to force him to give up his password. Surely the US, with its codified right to not self incriminate (ie the "right to remain silent"), has no such law either? Just askin', ya know.

An off-topic question

[Cassander]

From what I've heard, The Netherlands seems like one of the sanest countries around. How necessary is it to speak Dutch to live there? Could an english-speaking american ex-pat get by ok?

I don't want to leave my home country but if it keeps marching toward Christian Police State I would like a backup plan.

An easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Send the drives to DVD Jon and tell him they cannot be decrypted in a million years.

Jack Bauer

[fux]

Give him a call.

put it on the web.

[Anonymous Coward]

just drop the drive image on the web and open the task to anyone willing to decrypt it. In a month or so, people will break this. There are a lot of smart guys out there, mathematicians, scientists, security experts and hackers that would love to crack this.

send jack bauer

[hesaigo999ca]

>No Brazilian law exists to force Dantas to produce the password(s)
You know enough pressure applied to a wound, or salt poured into a wound, could really help speed things up.....
sure it's not pretty but Jack Bauer proved that it works. Good luck though trying to break those encryption programs, the whole purpose was to keep them out, what use is it to try and break it...break him instead.

Give them a password they wouldn't take seriously.

[MasterMynd]

Interrogator : "What is your password?"
Suspect : "I honestly don't know what your talking about."
interrogator : "So, your being difficult eh?"

Actual password - I honestly don't know what your talking about.

Quantum computing

[xmvince]

With quantum computing they could crack it within a year.

You are by far the more vile one in the end

[SuperKendall]

You are a vile human being, I just hope to God you're not in a position to carry out your philosophy on other people.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you... I think of people like you, and the thousands or millions of innocent people dead all because someone just like you was unwilling to use any degree of force, no matter how small, to extract information from a single individual obviously intent on causing innocent people harm.

I'm not really religious, but if there is a God I don't think you'll be seeing him for a while after you pass on, as you work off your debt to the innocents in the afterlife. Each one, I am hoping, you will be required to face in person and explain why you believe what you do.

I don't believe you are evil by nature, but it is a shame that great evil is being done because of mistaken beliefs such a yours.

Mincing words

[SuperKendall]

I said physical torture was the line, so PRETTY OBVIOUSLY I would not be OK with said force being used on anyone and then calling it not torture from "one mans point of view". Torture is, to me, an absolute regardless of who is being tortured.

It's the ultimate in moral equivalence to re-phrase torture as not-torture simply by selecting the viewer.

Re:Mincing words

[potat0man]

But making a father watch while his son was water-boarded would be ok?

They won't do that.

[Benfea]

Any interrogator will tell you that torture produces bad information. The purpose of torture is not to get a particular piece of information out of a particular individual, what you want is to torture large numbers of people in a particular population in order to cow them and make them afraid of standing up to a particular government.

With torture the target is not the person tortured, it is everyone who knows the person who was tortured. They see a broken man and are afraid of becoming the same way.

Re:They won't do that.

[countertrolling]

Any interrogator will tell you that torture produces bad information.

In this guy's case, all they have to do is crank up the voltage until he coughs up the password.. Or they can politicize the issue, as is done in the states, and actually get a significant part of the population to believe that torture is ok as it becomes routine. In a back-asswards way, that's what the authorities are calling for as they admit "defeat" here.

Children are different

[SuperKendall]

But making a father watch while his son was water-boarded would be ok?

Let's say the son was 18 years old or so. Well then, why not. It's not torture. He wouldn't like it of course.

But it wouldn't cause lasting damage.

Now if you are talking much younger than that, there I think it starts crossing the line. But then again if the kid and the father had killed innocent people or could prevent them from dying, then it would be OK. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.