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

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: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: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.

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: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.