Slashdot Mirror
Ex-NSA Chief Supports Separate Secure Internet
Hugh Pickens writes "Nextgove reports that Michael Hayden, former director of both the NSA and the CIA, says the United States may seriously want to consider creating a new Internet infrastructure to reduce the threat of cyberattacks and several current federal officials, including U.S. Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander, also have floated the concept of a '.secure' network for critical services such as financial institutions, sensitive infrastructure, government contractors, and the government itself that would be walled off from the public web. Unlike .com, .xxx and other new domains now proliferating the Internet, .secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. 'I think what Keith is trying to suggest is that we need a more hardened enterprise structure for some activities and we need to go build it,' says Hayden. 'All those people who want to violate their privacy on Facebook — let them continue to play.' Clay Dillow writes that on the existing internet everyone does everything online anonymously, and while that's great for liberties, it's also dangerous when cyber criminals/foreign hackers are roaming the cyber countryside. Under the proposed .secure internet 'you may not be able to go to certain neighborhoods of the Web without showing your papers at a checkpoint — and perhaps subjecting yourself to one of those humiliating electronic pat-downs as well,' writes Dillow. 'Those who want to remain anonymous on the Web can still frolic about in the world of dot-com, but in the dot-secure realm you would have to prove you are you.'"
Hasn't this guy learned anything from his time at the NSA?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Maybe we could get the TSA to screen users before boarding, I mean logging on to the secure internet.
... I'd guess that users and admins will act like users on a "safe" internal network act. They'll assume that they can go back to using four-letter passwords, not have firewalls, etc. It'll make the attacks less frequent, but when they do work they'll be eminently successful.
Under the proposed .secure internet 'you may not be able to go to certain neighborhoods of the Web without showing your papers at a checkpoint — and perhaps subjecting yourself to one of those humiliating electronic pat-downs as well,' writes Dillow.
Hi, Dillow. Please get over yourself and get the stick out of your ass. If you think that losing anonymity in a place where you go voluntarily and the people who do business choose to not be anonymous is the same as Nazi Germany's (or Soviet Union) clamping down on your ability to travel, then you have a screw loose.
All those people who want to violate their privacy on Facebook — let them continue to play — we'll violate their privacy everywhere else.
Not sure how this will work if he means that it should be a broad public network. All it takes is one user to "bridge" the networks (log in on the secure network while being connected to the Internet, say via public wireless) and you're not much better off than today.
Sounds very soft-shell, a.k.a as "billions in the sea with nothing to show but some theater".
But also the guy who robbed me. And a couple of gals who forged my "papers". And my brother, I guess. Let's not forget the wife. Most importantly, any TLA. But that's all.
I think they also need a .kids so that there is a separate internet for kids. This way they don't have to use children as the excuse to censor the entire internet. Anyone who wants to access .kids should either be under 18 or be a licensed adult. Sex offenders of course would not receive a license.
This smells particularly familiar..
How does this do away with anyone's rights? The fourth amendment isn't a right to go anywhere you please without being asked questions. I'm regularly ID'd when I walk into bars; I have to schedule a tour of the White House; The bank doesn't like it when I bring my gun inside. Private companies have the right to a reasonable inquiry as to the credentials of their customers. As for government websites, while they're subject to stricter standards because of the fourth amendment, just like I can't walk into a police department or courtroom at my own discretion to do whatever I please, the fourth amendment doens't give me the right to plumb the depths of cia.gov at my discretion. Asking for my ID at the door doesn't substantially violate any right to privacy (a right which, by the way, isn't a "fourth amendment" right; it's a right resulting from an amalgam of implications within the Constitution).
I have suggested a separate, secure 'internet' for years now. I don't trust the internet for high power financial transactions, health records, criminal laws, etc. If nothing else, it will be much easier to track crackers down.
Fucktard. Forgot to check 'Post Anonymously', huh?
financial institutions, so will ATM's move back to dial up? What about on line banking? Will that need a VPN? a remote desktop setup?
It's funny how hard it is to let go of past models. The heart of the Internet model is, as the saying goes "a sphere", where every node has equal access to every other node. No clients, no servers, just equal connectors. Society as a whole (when weighted by money rather than head-count) keeps trying to reject that in favour of it being a fancy way to broadcast: a few large hosts running Wal-Mart-sized data centres, many clients on as dumb a terminal as possible. Efforts to democratize information flow are opposed as either unserious utopianism or outright crime. (They can't seem to find a statute forbidding Wikileaks that doesn't forbid the Times, but from the rhetoric, you'd never guess.)
When Hayden says that "users" 4th-amendment rights would be abrogated, he isn't thinking of all the users, not the big ones. Just the little ones. Which I think just models how Hayden sees society itself. Little folks don't have rights, just privileges.
I don't think your network will be as secure as you hope:
DHS Admits Knowledge of Infected Import Tech (HARDWARE)
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/08/208206/DHS-Admits-Knowledge-of-Infected-Import-Tech
well-done!
btw, I have seen the proposal that `vi vi vi' is the equivalent of hebrew `s' letter, which is seen in the "vulcan hand salute" which has the shape of `w' ~= `www'.
pls excuse my lack of knowledge of the hebrew letter's name. it's not my native tongue but the WikPed has an entry for it under `hebrew alphabet'
Finally, let's be plain and clear about what we're discussing COMMERCE!!!
"Core elements of our electric grid, of our financial, transportation and communications infrastructure would be obvious candidates. But we simply cannot leave that core infrastructure on which the life and death of Americans depends without better security."
Here's an idea, if a service being infiltrated can result in deaths, DON'T CONNECT IT TO THE FUCKING INTERNET
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The west, not just America, needs MULTIPLE networks. In particular, there should be one for DOD, another for utilities such as Power, water, etc, and other for general commerce. The DOD and utilities should NOT be connected in any fashion with the general internet. In addition, the DOD one should be limited to friends, only.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ignore the privacy bit for a moment, because that seems to garner knee-jerk reactions around these parts, and look at the security bit.
There are a lot of transactions that need to be secure, yet would not qualify for the .secure network. For example: you could cram bank systems into the new network, but are you really going to allow every business that uses these financial systems on it (e.g. credit card transactions or trades on the stock market)? Even if you did, you would still end up with 'insecure' connections between the customer and the business. Or are you going to give every citizen a security token too? In that case, the ability to verify the identity of the user drops to nil since identify theft becomes an issue. Or people lending their identity to friends. Or people using loopholes in the system to create new identities.
Even a network which tightly restricts who could access it would face hurdles. Research labs attract all sort of riff-raff scientists and technicians. Some of those people will create bridges between the .secure network and everything else. Even if it is unintentional, because they are using the same systems to access secure databases as they use to access journals (and their goof-off resources). I'm not saying that it is impossible to stop that sort of thing, but it will be awfully difficult given the population involved.
It's great for the networking & security consulting business, you know. I happen to know a I've done it best part of my life now :]
Who cares if it cost arm and leg, doesn't ever make what was meant as the target is moving all the time, but we can make A LOT OF MONEY BETWEEN !
The hardest part is always selling the idea to management, but apparently this time it's more pull than push, so we should be glad about it and get shoveling money right away, yay!
Conceptually this sounds good as it would allow separate networks for stuff that should be secure from stuff that doesn't. I fear that the implementation will not work out that way as business now don't want to spend the money to separate things as it requires more hardware. You will also run into the why can't I access Google/Facebook/internet thing from this machine that is only connected to the scads system. In general companies are too cheap and their employees are too stupid to have real security.
Add to it the fact that this is coming from a government agency that is known for spying I am not terribly I sure I trust that the motives are entirely altruistic. It may be that they are (SELinux) or just a better way of keeping tabs on individuals.
Time to offend someone
Please, please can we not mention religion on Slashdot?
It's always the same. Religious people flaming atheists, atheists flaming religious people and agnostics flaming both sides. The universal argument? "I'm right because it's obvious and you're stupid for not agreeing".
They would be separate for about an hour. Right away, somebody would figure out a way to connect them together thus defeating the purpose.
So if you ran a proxy for accessing these .secure machines (like tor), it appears anybody who uses said proxy could be charged with identity fraud.. since the ID is associated with a particular person. This isn't an issue with current proxies, since there is no claim that an IP address represents a particular individual.
Also if your ID gives access to EVERYTHING (email, banking etc) then you'll be much less likely to want to share it.
you mean... like some kind of internal network? with some sort of DMZ that separates it from the rest of the interweb? wow, i bet those gov IT guys never thought of that! i wonder where this guy got his IT degree from... oh wait. lul. and "certified credentials" ? you mean none of those gov websites require credentials? and here i was impressed by all the recent hacking of those servers that had happened.... guess I should have taken a better look into the matter! and yes, changing those pesky interweb adresses from .gov to .secure will definitely make things *much* more secure.
on a more serious note, how about we start listening to people that actually know WTF they're talking about instead of putting everything into a title. do we really think that just because he was the head of the NSA that he has god-like mental abilities? no. more than likely he simply has a quicker wit than most, a family with money/political ties and the ability kiss anything - no matter how brown it is.
I agree, it really is annoying to people like me who actually are right.
It's the iGlove examinations that really disturb me. They don't even offer to buy me dinner afterwards.
Table-ized A.I.
So is the article talking about a separate physical network that is firewalled off from what we now call the Internet or is it just talking about a new top level domain that by policy requires domain owners to demand some sort of verifiable credentials for access to services on hosts that are pointed to by DNS entries within the new domain?
Unless it is a separate physical network with firewalls or other edge devices that require authentication and there is a mechanism to securely forward the credentials from the edge device to the internal host, you haven't crated any more real security.
Creating a new TLD on an existing "insecure" network that doesn't require authentication to access the physical network doesn't add any security. In this scenario anyone can still access the machines and it is up the owners of the machines to implement their own security. If the government (and others) can't manage security on their machines now, crating a new naming system for those machines isn't going to help.
Its the same in politics; the hope is that by discussion, at least perhaps we will all learn something, be it where we are wrong, or where our arguments are weak.
This proposal is not for a separate "Internet" as the headline states. It is merely for a separate top-level-domain. And all the servers on this domain would supposedly have super secure firewalls that are impenetrable and unhackable? Riiiiight.
.secure TLD will be any more secure than existing firewalls are just wishful thinking.
If this separate-but-not-really-SEPARATE "internet" is connected to the same wires as the regular internet then the hackers will still get in. Hell, all the servers that were hacked recently were supposedly super secure. Not a lot of good that did them.
If they want a truly secure, truly separate network then it shouldn't even be an "Internet" at all. It should have a completely separate set of wires. The equipment connected to these wires should be able to detect if the wires have been tapped into or if other unauthorized equipment is attached. It should have all new protocols, designed from the ground up for security and authentication rather than anonymity. In fact, every layer in the the entire IP stack should be completely thrown out and replaced with a secure system which, by law, can only be used on this new system. It will only be licensed for very specific purposes and no one else will be allowed to own this equipment or even have software that uses these protocols. Then, when you catch someone with this equipment or software, you know they are up to no good. The only way into the network will be by tapping in, which will be physically traceable, or by gaining physical access to a licensed terminal, which would be partially traceable but far more difficult to do.
Anything less than this is mere theater. Any claims that a
Why not just focus on securing what we have? We don't need a new .secure, just make banking sites more secure. Why not hire professional security personnel for network security instead of relying on a web developer to do it?
I thought about this a bit. this is MY proposal (from some random internet guy; but one who's been around, online, for quite a few decades).
what we need is true end-to-end encryption and that will get us all the 'secure' we need. it would not be a bad idea to insist that all non-encrypted protocols be aged out and replaced with SSL carried user-protocols (mail, file transfer, remote console, DNS, all the basics).
oh, there's one other tiny little detail. NO one can spy on the end-to-end connections. no MitM, no wiretaps, no opto-sniffing, no none of that [sic]. promise and ensure that all world citizens have protected (as in 'their rights, as human beings') end-to-end private communications. tapless and secure. to me, THIS means secure.
what they want is exactly the opposite. no encryption and nothing BUT tapping us (DPI, etc). they will know the identity of each networked station but this will not add to privacy OR security for anyone.
recognize this, people. do not give them this 'divided internet'! really bad idea. lets, instead, change the debate BACK to private communications and the right to not be listened to, monitored and surveiled.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
the concept of a '.secure' network for critical services such as financial institutions, sensitive infrastructure, government contractors, and the government itself that would be walled off from the public web
ohh you mean a VPN right? yeah we've had them for a while now
it will grow with time and then the same problems will exist again.
What we need is the idea that managing access to networks is important.
Use your own CA, use big (maybe even one time pad) keysizes, make firewalls restrictive, make it mandatory that all systems are are managed by an experienced administrator, use TCPI, make encryption mandatory, and educate all employees to do it the right way or ask for help. Educated everybody in controlling the access to documents correctly (no: oh, lets just make it readable for all philosphy). Create a climate in which the IT deparment listens to what the users want to do instead of defining that they dont want anything complicated.
Oh. You say that costs a lot? Yes, that costs a lot. but it solves the problem. The steps which you need to verify that somebody whom you communicate with on the "internet nr.2" are exactly the same ones you need to verify that you are talking to the right person on the normal internet.
Were these guys asleep in the last couple months? Seems to me that we have all been publicly reminded that computer networks aren't secure, and that some are very not secure because their owners are asleep at the wheel. So what to do about that? Of course! Pretend the problem is people pretending to be whom they are not, and carry on pretending that you can secure a network against that. Give a load of taxpayers money to some buddies to build a new 'secure' network, instead of legislating and regulating the owners of the current network components and asking them why they didn't secure their shit better. Can they not understand that there is no way for a server to tell which person it is communicating with, especially if that person deliberately lies? Only human beings can fairly reliably recognise other human beings. You can't make computers that can do it, they are much less clever than people.
Korma: Good
Do they mean a PKI, with certificates?
If so, .secure will go down like a lead balloon.
See: Email encryption (S/MIME etc) -- do you know anyone who uses it? In the unlikely event that you do, can you say they're not a huge nerd? Hell, I work as a security specialist and I don't use it because it's too hard.
Also see: DNSSEC -- even the big network operators are having difficulty deploying it, let alone anyone else.
And the https system for web certificates, which only "works" because it's fundamentally insecure (every browser trusts a huge list of CAs, any one of which can sign a certificate for any site, which is all that's required to impersonate the site -- and that's before we get into mixed content and all the other problems). .secure will require usable, secure authentication over the Internet, and that's *hard*.
Move the common 'net to the wireless broadband spectrum and secure net over cables.
The current internet was not designed for security, or traceability. A network designed for security and traceability should have a protocol and hardware designed for security and traceability.
Shin. It is "sh", more than "s".
The letter is symbolic of "shekinah", which is often translated as "Holy Spirit".
Of course, there are those that will sell you Will and Desire - naming it the "spirit's higher calling". Trust me - if something really pertains to the spirit, it is usually a rebuff to one's wishes.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I thought they already had a secured network -- SIPRNET?
Or do they just want a spam-free network?
Oh, maybe they mean NIPRNET -- why not let the banks and such on that?
Or maybe it's just that these bozos don't like sharing the ball OR the sandbox with anybody else and they want their own for just them and their good friends.
The guy's idea is both stupid and doomed to fail.
If you want security, you must have security on the whole chain, starting with the users' computers. And that's what cannot be done. The user will always be the weak link. The only solution to that problem would be to have hardened terminals -used only for that kind of secured communications- in public places (townhalls, etc.), and even that could be circomvented, albeit not that easily.
Of course, such a drastic -though feasible- solution would be impractical for many sites (government especially) which would need to be accessed through unsecured means: when looking for general information (not sensitive exchanges), you shouldn't be required to jump throught all those hoops.
As for his anti-privacy arguments, they fail miserably for the same reason: it does not matter if you are authenticated if your computer has been compromised! It would be all too easy to use your stolen credential from other compromissed computers...
With all the available options, why is there even a discussion of "critical" systems being on the publicly available Internet?
They want a service that THEY do not have to pay for (or pay only a fraction of its cost). That way, their projects can get the "security" check box checked without paying the real cost.
This is exactly what TLS is designed for. TLS can handle both TCP traffic and UDP, so in theory, machines should be using this for every packet that flies across the network other than the initial handshakes. Most edge protocols can be run over SSL/TLS, and DNS has DNSSEC. It is just getting other sites to have this available, so all traffic is protected.
As for wiretaps, here is my proposal. A wiretap can go on for a time... BUT:
The user has to be notified about the wiretap at the end of the process.
The data obtained from the wiretap, unless it is used in immediate criminal or national security case gets discarded completely after a reasonable period of time.
The data is only used for one set of charges, just like a search warrant only allows searching on a limited basis. If police are searching a house for a dead body and find marijuana plants, they can't just add that possession charge without due process.
The data never leaves the LEO/TLA. This way, a wiretap doesn't turn into a fishing expedition for a patent or copyright troll, or can be used by an ex-spouse to win a divorce case.
This is what happens when politicians who know nothing about security or network infustructure make high level design decisions.
Securing the wire always has and always will be a lost cause. Just click the little require secure connections only button in all of your operating system (IPSec) and you have yourself your secure private network.
There is no reason to segment traffic. On a large network you can expect someone on the network will eventually be compromised by an insider or determined advasary. Given this reality physically separate network must not be relied on to convey any security at any time.
All it means is you don't see a bunch of botnets launching blind attacks 24x7. It means important infustructure on a "secure" network becomes as complacent and vulnerable as the machines behind corporate firewalls. It is human nature. Without constant pressure it will happen. If you are tired of the random hits use IPv6.
Never trust the wire.. Just don't do it. It is always stupid and you will always be burned by it.
A few other points needing to be made:
If the content of your communication can not be private good luck with your "secure" network.
Federated authentication systems tend to induce weaknesses in server authentication. Imagine everyone on earth was using openid or had the same password file. You could login to any computer you wanted with your credentials.
This means:
The material which authenticates you as a person can not also be used to authenticate the service you are consuming as everyone has access to the authentication system. Even if your credentials are never exposed your authentication provides you with no assurances with regards the service you are consuming beyond an unbound trust anchor.
I was thinking the same, I'm sure I read they had already built one. Why don't they just run off a copy if they need another? OK, give it a misleading TLD if you have to for marketing purposes.
Korma: Good
Same flaw in argument as the original article. Starting from the computer does not identify the user. Even if you made the person submit DNA every time they logged in some would go around collecting people's DNA and keeping it in the fridge for when they needed to anon.
Korma: Good
Most agree that the corporate hegemony + corrupt/incompetent govt will eventually eat away at many online freedoms. Fine. This idea (or even the separate physical wires proposal), then, is beneficial because it will direct their attention away from the "regular" internet and towards securing their little playground. Perhaps they'll even leave the "regular" internet alone forever. Certainly they won't tackle the hard problems and sticky, unpopular, politically questionable issues involved in messing with the "regular" internet until they see if their new playground has succeeded or failed.
Everything I'm interested in won't be moving to some jackbooted version of the net, so let them have it! Will /. move? No. Will kernel.org move? No. Will chegg.....umm...I mean my espn fantasy hoops league move? Prolly not.
Get these a$$clownz out of our hair, at least temporarily. Plus, it's infrastructure investment, and therefore it's money much better spent than, say, going to war against the cavemen of Random 3rd World Country X.
Saying that a network which requires credentials linked to your identity "would do away with users' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy" is ridiculous. The only thing that the Fourth Amendment says about privacy is that the feds can't search your stuff without a warrant. What the devil does that have to do with when you choose to visit a site which won't work with you unless you reveal your true identity?
Extra, Extra! Read all about it! Gub'ment proposes new security technology for shops and inns, called "refusing to do business with you unless you tell us your real name." Union of patent medicine peddlers objects that it breaches their "right to privacy!"
There is a time when what you have said of Will is true, and, specifically for you, an interval soon to come when it ceases being true. (and maybe a time when it is true again, if the Joy of Matter lies at the end of the aeons). This is not the place to speak of such things, nor are we in Daath where such things are neither spoken of or ignored. The request to address you despite this comes neither from my Will or my Desire (for certain values of my acceptable to majority consensus in western civilization).
Who is John Cabal?
As if covert Internets are not already in use. (And if they are not, the NSA has not done its job.)
Simpson's Nelson has some advice here. "Ha Ha". .Gov: "Hi. We'd like a .secure TLD." .Gov: "Sudo give us .secure Now to combat pedophilic terrorists and people who photo people in Apple stores."
US
ICANN : "Sure. $185,000 please."
US
"I can do that, Yes ICANN."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Anonymous individuals aren't the problem. Anonymous businesses are the problem. Most of the troubles we have on the Internet come from web sites which purport to be from some legitimate business, but aren't. Malware, spam, etc. all eventually involve some online business.
This is a consequence of ICANN's squishy-soft regulation of registrars and weak enforcement of WHOIS data quality rules. More recently, corrupt CAs have become a problem. The companies that collect money registering the identify of web sites are failing in their responsibilities.
All we need on the client side is good ISP ingress filtering, so that corrupted clients can't use an IP address other than their own. (All you can do with a fake IP address is send junk, since you don't get any of the replies.) Then, DDoS attacks can be tracked and blocked.
We sorta have decided. We're getting divided and conquered.
The smart liberals, of which several inhabit slashdot, know it is not worth it. But alone we are not enough.
The "innocent" masses, who just want to check their email and post a picture to their wall, Like this stuff. "Click Here to keep Terrorists Away! * (*Doing so means agreement with the implementation of the following 147 pages of policy.)
Dammit, I gotta get going - Since "Book" seems to have been taken by FaceBook, I need a new second noun. Call it VoteForum. (Look! Prior Art! I hope...) If we move Voting SOCIAL, the suddenly our friends in .Gov will be faced with 30% turnarounds in single elections because the *real americans* will have thrashed out the issues.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
'All those people who want to violate their privacy on Facebook — let them continue to play
This was never the way I planned, not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand, lost my discretion
It's not what I'm used to, just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you caught my attention
I violated my privacy on the Facebook and I liked it, the taste of its cherry botnet
I violated my privacy on the Facebook just to try it, I hope my bank don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right, don't mean I'm in love tonight
I violated my privacy on the Facebook and I liked it, I liked it
No, I don't even know your name, it doesn't matter
You're my experimental game, just human nature
It's not what good netizens do, not how they should behave
My head gets so confused, hard to obey
I lost my 4th on the .secure and I liked it, the taste of its cherry spynet
I lost my 4th just to try it, I hope my country don't mind it
It felt so wrong, it felt so right, don't mean I'm in love tonight
I lost my 4th and I liked it, I liked it
That's why you're stuuuuuupid.
encryption is nice, but its not the answer to everything. the major issue is in fact, bugs. and you can't easily prevent bugs.
there are operating systems and security measure which are VERY good compared to what 99.9% use today, but they're not applied because there is no commercial gain yet.
anyhow, the point of their push for a 2nd internet is not security. it's control. Don't get that wrong. it has little to see with life critical stuff.
Internet last time I checked was just a commonly recogised way of routing ip packets.
I think they security is whatever protocol you choose to use on top of that.
I hear that ssl Is a popular choice these days. Does suffer from being 'open source' rather than a nice secure private protocol you can buy but seems to be quite popular.
A completely separate (air gap, and no wireless, no shared programs or data) device from your "insecure" Internet computer. I see very little chance of this happening. The first unwitting member of a botnet who signs in to the "secure" Internet with their magical "secure" credentials will immediately un-secure it for everyone else.
Why not create your own "LAN" on top of the internet using VPN connections? Why would this need a separate network? Are we that worried about DoS attacks on VPN connections? And why go with a single network, whilst you may have different roles to different institutions?
The idea of a non-anonymous sub-network is certainly an interesting one, and you could argue that it does have many benefits over providing credentials to each and every site (for each and every protocol). Proof of citizenship (e.g. with a digital ID) would be the most likely candidate for access. You could think of schemes where one could just prove citizenship and be anonymous to most instititions, but where you could be identified (and banned) by your own government if you have been proven to abuse/attack the system.
I'm not saying that I would be in favour of this - but it is certainly an idea worth mulling over. It would be pretty tricky to implement on top of most operating systems and applications since they haven't been build with VPN's like that in mind (e.g. because on most systems it would require system priviledges to set up a LAN).
Check out i2p.
This is NOT the internet. The internet will still exist in its current evolving form.
This is a national network that supports limited tasks and offers zero privacy.
The govt constantly monitors.everything on this network.
The big question is - Why didn't we start this 10 years ago?
The concept is good, but there are some points that will surface in the next five years.
1. It will support federally guaranteed monetary transfers up to $5000
2. It will be a free (no subscription) connection to 99.9% of all US households
3. It will be devoid of commercial advertising
4. It will support all tax and commercial financial transfers
Once there were mountains on mountains
And once there were sunbirds
to soar with
And once I could
never be down
Got to keep searching
and searching
Oh what will I be believing
and who will connect me with love?
Wonder who wonder who
wonder when
Have you sought fortune evasive and shy?
Drink to the men who protect you and I
Drink drink drain your glass
raise your glass high
Or is it really
"No reason to get excited,"
The thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that,
And this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now,
The hour is getting late."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Instead of this backward approach to government security being firewalls and this and that, lay out a different network, complete with its own fiber and connections. Think of it like re-creating the old Arpanet, where the public does NOT have access, and the only connections come from places with real reasons to be connected. The places with real need for security would not have ANY connections to the normal Internet, no gateways, no dial-up, NOTHING that others could use to access it remotely. The CIA, FBI, and a core military connection might be connected on this new network, but if you want REAL security, don't let ANYONE even try knocking on the door.
At no time should an employee even have access from home, unless the person has such a requirement for that access that dedicated fiber links to the home for that very reason is considered valid, and with that access, the home should have 24x7 security to make sure the location itself is not compromised. Even then, you would have dedicated machines at the location for one network or the other, with no connections between the two, no wireless on the machine(s) that are on the secured network.
Lock it down, don't give the "keys" to anyone, and anyone that does have home access to such a secured network should have the connected machine monitored 24x7. Why be stupid and risk security via VPN when there is a chance the VPN itself may be compromised? Why take the risk?
It just seems to me if you're going to talk tcp/ip, use the same pipe, adhear to current rfc's, your network will be no more secure then it is today. The wheel already works (securely if you want), its the hamsters powering it that are broken.
That said, if you need to secure a private network use a private pipe. Secure the "human" access via physical protection, and train your hamsters.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Of course, only one side has the backing of science, logical reasoning, and in general, fact. Claiming all three arguments are equal is disingenuous.
Great Intellect...
Three letter TLDs are fine; use .sec, not .secure, if you're really going to do this.
I decline your offer because you have no idea what you are talking about.
First off, I don't mean to be an ass, you just seem to be ignorant. There is something called DNSSEC that not only exists, but is part of IPv6. Considering that you do not mention DNSSEC, and that both it and our current TLS implementations include "tapless and secure" "end-to-end" encryption facilities supports my first sentence...
DNSSEC isn't just for DNS, it could authenticate and encrypt email, or any other web traffic and can be a replacement for SSL. Please research it before replying to this comment.
Additionally, it doesn't matter how encrypted your connection is to what you see as yourbank.com if you can't verify that your are really connected to the place you think you are connected. Ergo: end-to-end encryption is not all the 'secure' we need, we also need authentication -- The fact that you did not mention authentication also supports my first statement. Now, if there is already a shared secret key between two parties then BOTH authentication and encryption can be performed easily.
Me: "I'm VortexCortex, here is some session salt: NWUyOGVkMWZlMTQw, and here is my encrypted message: "..."
Bank: "Hello VortexCortex, here is some session salt: MTkwMjM4MDE5ODIzM, and here is my encrypted reply: "..."
The shared secret key can be used along with the salts to create a key that decrypts the messages -- no fancy PKI needed... However, how do you first set up the account? With banks, you could visit them in person, but what about online retailers? You would have no pre-shared key, and this means they don't know who you are, and you can't verify who they are because neither have a pre-shared key.
Thus, we need some form of trusted public/private key infrastructure (hierarchical or Web of Trust, etc) in order to first validate an endpoint.
Finally -- WE CAN'T ENCRYPT EVERYTHING. It's not feasible to do this for cached content, high bandwidth video, live streaming, etc because encryption makes distributed content and/or deduplication impractical.
Unfortunately HTML and TLS (security) are designed independently of each-other and no one (but me?) thinks that HTML needs to know about security too... HTTP cookies can be marked as "secure only", why can't HTML tags have secure attributes?
The thing is: We don't need to encrypt something in order to trust it -- we can use hashing / digital fingerprints to ensure data integrity. Here's a post I made concerning the brain-damage that is the lack of security aware HTML. For the link-lazy, here's the pertinent part:
The BIGGEST retardation on the WEB is the fact that we have strong encryption and cryptographic signature technology in our browsers, and yet MIXED content is UNSAFE because (X)HTML standards don't declare facilities to specify fingerprints for the non-encrypted data that the encrypted page pulls in -- thus allowing for privacy of encrypted content, AND caching of plaintext content WITHOUT compromising integrity. /> Now apply this to the .js, .class, flash, .mp3, .avi, etc, and you get the point.
<img src="bkgnd.png" sig="SHA-1/hex;22172a80d89e99d250db62bf71031a23cbac4801" salt="HMAC/Base64;U2VjdXJpdHkgaXMgZWFzeS4K"
in short: You don't seem to know what you are talking about, but fret not, no one else does either or else we would have already solved this problem (because the answers are so apparent to those who do know what they are talking about).
TL;DR: I agree, the current direction the web is going is fine, but we need authentication an
But since nobody in the public could possibly make use of something so useless; you had better not use any of our tax money to fund it.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I reckon this foretells what the "internet" will be in the future: many networks not one. And I'm certain many folks have foretold this, or made the same observation. But I reckon that what we see as the internet will become many networks in the future, segmented by purpose, as exemplified by what is discussed in the article here. It's what is done with the majority of networks now, being behind routers and using NAT or some similar bridging (routing) ability.
I reckon as we transition to having the minimum required bandwidth available through the "airwaves", it will be easier to define separate physical backbones and what not that create different "internets". An address like 80.80.22.135 might be valid on multiple internets, you just need to connect to the correct one to have it resolve the way you expect.
Accepting that observation and hypothesis, perhaps that creates a real troublesome environment for centralized command and control structures that work to regulate, filter, or control networked content. When you have to find the backbone for the network, in addition to the other elements, it becomes more difficult to control and monitor the data moved over that network.
Aside from all the comments above regarding why it will not work and what difficulties can and will arise, compromising its so-called security, could this lead us to internet based elections and discussions of a political nature? Might we be permitted to have government level discussions from our homes over our secure access tokens to not only vote but to eliminate the need for representation at all? As a fictional example I cite the wonder work by Orson Scott Card entitled Ender's Game (If you haven't read it, quit slashdot forever) Where political discussions take place on "adult" nets requiring real name credentials, with no throw-away identities. For examples of how it won't work, due to loopholes and the like, I cite the same work of fiction in which two children use their father's credentials to write motivating columns for syndicated newspapers, obtain aliases to the secure nets as payments for their work, and set about taking over the world through the ideas they foster into the minds of the people. Time will tell. But I think the world as it is does not want to see an absolution of representation, nor the taxation that goes along with it.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
It just looks a lot like a new top level domain to me. And if someone manages to hack your DNS setup and point you to an evil server, .secure won't mean squat. They'll redirect your sessions through a 'man in the middle' system, or just point every page request you make to Goatse Guy.
If you can secure specific clients, servers, and routers assigned to a secure infrastructure, then .mil, .gov, or even .com will be just fine. A new TLD will look cool, but won't buy you much more than .xxx. If you are actually proposing a whole new system of pipes, physically separate from the Internet v1.0, its going to cost you big time. And much of the value of being able to work with the public 'Net will be lost.
Have gnu, will travel.
Son, take a look at the OP's UID. He's way older than you, so at the very least give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows better than you and don't be such a cocksure condescending prick. FYI, authentication is implied in end-to-end encryption. The rest of the stuff you were so quick to write also completely misses the point. And you called HIM ignorant...
Just mandate people get fixed IP addresses - or blocks of them. Sure, use SSL and such existing protocols. Oh right, the ISPs don't want you to have one.
Good points, but is this condescending attitude really necessary?
Vomits is more like it.
Calling an Army General an Admiral is the highest insult affored a "Military Man", not one of the Village People by the way.
Now, our good [Admiral} Michael Vincent Hayden want to erract a Nigger Internet!
Why "Nigger" Internet?
Simple.
"Nigger" is the "Old South" name for Nigroid, a person orginating from Nigeria or "Congo" in the 1700s and 1800s, refering to people kidnaped in Africa and rendered in the United States of America from late 1700's through 1865 for slavery and inderntured servitude. The practice has actually continued to this day but now goes by "other" superlatives, such as "English Teacher" in Japan.
Oh, about superlatives. Obama's Secret Executive Orders on Rendition and Torture which continue ... as they need [to passify him] ... because such gives Obama ... sexual pleasures ... that his wife and mistresses (male and children consorts which the Secret Service capture in S.E. DC and render to the White House basement) cannot fulfill.
Jack the Ripper.
Barak Obama.
Two bussom buddies from the same cloth.
--
But this "secure" network will run on the Internet too, right? Otherwise how does your client connect to the secure server?
And if clients are on the regular Internet, can't the client still be compromised? And if any client on the secure system is compromised, isn't the brand spanking new "secure" Internet just as broken as the nasty old "bad" Internet?
Problem: We need a secure way to communicate with critical non-local computers while keeping the bad guys out.
Solution #1: Physically isolated network.
Downside: Typically very expensive once you leave a building or campus.
Solution #2: Isolated in "IP space," but may share physical wire with Internet traffic.
Downside: Can't use same PC or remote device to access this machine and the Internet at the same time. Can't easily guarantee computer isn't infected with malware unless you don't allow the PC to connect to the Internet or run non-approved software, ever.
Solution #3: VPN with strong authentication and strong prevention of VPN client computer becoming a "bridge" between the Internet and the secured network.
Downside: It's practically impossible to completely ensure the client computer isn't also on the Internet and not hosting malware.
In practice though Solution #3 is more than adequate for non-military or similar uses.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hey its the New Master Control Program that everyones been talking about...
would somebody give that fool the spec sheet on IPv6. Thank god he's been completely institutionalized.
And this is news how exactly?
On the one hand, he is sort of right - a common platform at least one layer away from the raw outside would be a major good step in the right direction, and it already works somewhere else (I did this in 1996..1998).
On the other hand, the network is only half the story - I'd still like to see them fix those site problems even before they go behind a wall because that secure environment will otherwise just act as an excuse not to clean up the basics. You actually need quite a bit more (preventing single points of defense failure, banning IPv6 extensible headers, losing the whole "hard shell, soft center approach", just to name but a few).
The good news is that they are at least talking about it now for more than just political point.
If they're just NOW contemplating this, they should've hired me when I turned 21 and let me get shit set straight.
But nooooooo, gotta go for that dipshit with only paper knowledge and zero real-world experience, because that college degree MUST mean he knows his stuff, riiiight?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
doesn't RFC 3514 already address this?
Unlike .com, .xxx and other new domains now proliferating the Internet, .secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users' Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.
TLDs DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!! GOOD NIGHT!
Are you sure its cyber threat not "citizen information denial" that brings a call for a "top secreted cleared only" Internet?
If the US wanted to fix cyber threat, it would make spam, cookies, spyware, unregistered mail, and embedded viruses, etc. really against the law and impose 20 year prison sentences on the persons and executives of any company which promotes, allows or finances such stuff in ways which reach the active Internet. Then the government could do something useful for a change, like chase down the cyber violators in the same fashion as they trace down and find copyright or patent infringers for the media and software industries.
Cyber threat is another 9/11 like myth [cold war, medical information threat[Hippa], airliner threat, etc.]. Government and their licensed media bandits use "security myths" to scare enough people in order to "make legitimate" the expert testimony made to Congress which might support a reason for government to make itself top secret [which every citizen in the US is against]. Transferring government produced information [particularly government sponsored research findings] which can be copyrighted or patented or licensed] and useful data on citizens to insiders could make the Secret Internet into black market provider of information on citizens.
The government needs to go back to paper and leave the Internet alone or it needs to be just as open as its "spy on its citizens" programs has imposed on the rest of us.
.
So we can secure that children, Christians and others with sensitive minds who look at internet sites that end in .com does not inadvertently see pornographic imaging!
And also a .evil network, that all evil persons and hackers must connect to, so the normal ".com" network is secure for normal users and the new .secure network is secure simply by asking for your keyfile which normal persons don't have and the hackers that could forge it are not allowed to connect to these machines because they are given the .evil network (Which can then easily be filtered out in countries like Australia)
Problem solved!