Slashdot Mirror


Pakistan Bans Encryption

An anonymous reader writes "After some rumors of this last month, Pakistan has now officially told all of the country's ISPs that they need to block all encrypted VPNs since content running over such services cannot be monitored by the government."

56 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. awesome by dgas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure this will totally work out for the government without any blowback or unintended consequences...

    1. Re:awesome by laird · · Score: 2

      There will be (I hope) a push by Pakistani companies against this insane law because it makes it impossible for any Pakistani people or companies to do any work with any company outside Pakistan. It's unimaginable that any company would blow a hole in their security just to satisfy Pakistan's insecurity, so if they actually enforce this law all it will do is force everyone to shift their business from Pakistan to some other country.

      Yes, their economy is in terrible shape. But IMO that means that they really cannot afford to destroy what little industry they do have doing business internationally.

      And if that doesn't work, the embarassment of having written a law that forces businesses to work with (for example) India instead of Pakistan will (IMO) do the trick.

    2. Re:awesome by orangebox · · Score: 2

      Recall an article from last year labeling Pakistan as one of the cheapest (and best) outsourcing country for IT jobs. I sure wouldn't want them into my network without VPN or encryption of sort. Good by jobs.

  2. Re:Security concerns by spazdor · · Score: 2

    If you aren't doing anything bad, why couldn't the government know about it?

    Now where have I heard that question before...

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  3. Re:Question by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?

    By checking the "encrypted" bit in the TCP/IP packet header. It's right next to the "evil" bit.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Dear Pakistan by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Save yourselves some money and some bother, and just disconnect yourselves from the internet! That way you'll be Safe (tm).

    This has just prevented pretty much anyone who works for a Fortune 500 company from doing anything in Pakistan on company laptops. I dunno, maybe that's a good thing? I can imagine that now more than one "elected official" will point to Pakistan as a shining example to follow (just like what happened earlier with RIM and the Blackberry in India and Saudi Arabia and later everywhere) and VPNs will no longer be allowed because of course they could be the tools of terrorists. Damn, why did I have to wake up in this parallel universe 10 years ago.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Dear Pakistan by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try Fortune $infinity. The company I work for is no where near Fortune 500 or even 5000 and we still could not have anyone work from Pakistan now.

    2. Re:Dear Pakistan by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      The article does say (yes, I read it, guess I'm new here) - that people who need VPNs for business use will be able to get a license to run them.

      You'll just need to make a case for why you use it. Of course, the moment licenses exist - you open the door for the people you are supposedly targeting to bribe an official to get one - which means that you won't catch them at all now - after all, their encrypted traffic was expected and approved upfront !

      Basically... this is an exercise in quantum stupidity.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Re:good luck with that by spazdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, this is pretty much an unwinnable arms race. No matter how much deep packet inspection brute-force they want to employ - If they allow any protocols at all to run unrestricted, it'll be possible to tunnel data over it. Hell, give me an ICMP-only network and I'll encode data payloads into the TTL numbers.

    Pakistan is gonna have to cut off its Internet backbones entirely if it's serious about shutting down encrypted communication.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  6. Telnet by detritus. · · Score: 2

    Hopefully this is the end of SSH as we know it in Pakistan. Re enable telnet on all those routers and servers, like it's 1996!

  7. And the rest? by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about digital signatures?

    eCommerce using SSL?

    Password-protected files?

    OS passwords?

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  8. I spoke too soon by spazdor · · Score: 2, Informative

    It exists. Obviously.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    1. Re:I spoke too soon by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And don't forget ye olde Tunnel Over DNS!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Re:Security concerns by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "War" can be so convenient.

  10. Re:Security concerns by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it's none of your damned.... sigh, I give up. Take it all. But you get to live in this shitty world too.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  11. no more shopping in pakistan for me by sneakyimp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rats. I was planning to make a huge purchase of textiles and smuggled afghan opium from PakistanMallOnline.com with my credit card. Now, since it won't be encrypted, I cannot. Guess I'll have to buy from IndiaMallOnline instead.

  12. Not just no encryption -- also logging EVERYTHING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The new law not only imposes exciting requirements so that the gov't can monitor all communications for 120 days, but also forbids anyone but the government to "monitor, reconcile, or block any traffic" -- so the ISP, parents, schools etc. are not allowed to do that.

    The encryption ban isn't all that impressive, just typical government not-thinking-things-through, and easily enough fixable -- they could add an exception for banks, permitting encryption but the bank has to store the corresponding unencrypted data. FWIW, the requirements pertaining to this may be in place (I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if that's what the second statement here means, or if it's more a Room 641A thing for international comms passing through):

    (6) The Licensee(s) and Access Provider shall ensure that signaling information is uncompressed, unencrypted, and not formatted in a manner which the installed monitoring system is unable to decipher using the installed capabilities.

    (7) In case it is not possible to monitor the signaling information of some traffic at the Probe and the Authority has agreed to let the traffic pass through, the required signaling information shall be extended from the Licensee(s) and Access Provider(s) network's premises, at their own cost, including but not limited to the required format conversions, hauling of data to the Authority designated location, and installation of additional equipment to achieve information as specified in subregulation (6) above.

    What's really jawdropping is requiring that every fucking byte going through every ISP or telco in Pakistan must be logged for 120 days. In other news, the middle east division of every vendor of massive storage arrays report 1000% increase in sales...

    Read the law here (PDF), it's only 6 pages.

  13. Re:First! by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    The drones are probably controlled by satellite, which begs another question. Exactly what is stopping someone in Pakistan from talking to a satellite owned by a country other than Pakistan, over a VPN? Used to be expensive as fuck, I can't imagine it's very cheap nowadays, the bandwidth and latency suck, but I'm sure that Hughes is dying to sell you an account. And of course if you're engaged in nefarious, lucrative and very private business then what's a couple hundred bucks a month between friends?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. What an opportunity... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If all encryption is being banned, then it should make it trivial to start stealing passwords and bank card numbers from Pakistanis. We don't have an extradition treaty with them do we? Ready, set, crack!

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:What an opportunity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Crack what? Just listen!

  15. Satellites? by quickgold192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amid all these internet-blocking stories I still haven't found an answer to how dictators prevent satellite internet connections, or even if they do. I know how they could block them if they wanted to, but does anyone know how they actually do it? Or if they even bother with it?

    1. Re:Satellites? by MimeticLie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Iran has been accused of jamming satellite connections in the past, as has Libya. The US apparently has the capability.

      As for how it's possible, Wikipedia has a brief description of the process. Because of the satellite's distance, it's signal is relatively weak when it reaches the ground (you're familiar with the inverse-square law, right?). A terrestrial broadcast will be much stronger and can drown out the signal from the satellite.

      (reposting this because I forgot to login. whoops)

  16. Re:Security concerns by lavalyn · · Score: 2

    Encrypted connections are used for online banking. Or would you prefer to have a man listening in for your passwords and emptying your bank account with your login?

    --
    Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
  17. Re:Stenography by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

    Detecting stenography is easy, you just look for the person sitting there with the funny typewriter thingy. Now steganography, that's hard to spot...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  18. no remote workers by bugi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They won't have anymore telecommuters. One of our workers awhile back was resident in pakistan. No way are we going to let our data over the wire in the clear, so we can't hire from there anymore.

    1. Re:no remote workers by Issarlk · · Score: 2

      the bribe might push the cost of having a worker in Pakistan over the cost of having a worker in, say, India.

  19. Re:Security concerns by Cwix · · Score: 2

    Like a pig he'll roll around in it and enjoy it.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  20. Re:Security concerns by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

    Not to worry. His passwords will be unecrypted too. So all you have to do is sniff his packets and you can get back your money and more!
     
    For the humour impaired, that was a joke.

  21. Re:Not just no encryption -- also logging EVERYTHI by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Informative

    Based on my reading of the law (thanks for posting the link to the PDF, AC), you can still encrypt traffic (think banks, online retailers, etc.) as long those who employ it add additional network links to the Pakistani government, pass all traffic to the government and provide them with the appropriate keys. Said additional links and any supporting hardware and/or software to be implemented at the TLS/SSL users' expense.

    AFAICT, The 120 days that the OP refers to isn't how long they have to keep the data, it's how long ISPs have to implement the environment.

    N.B. IANAL

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  22. Re:Question by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can one detect if a packet is encrypted? How do you distinguish unencrypted binary data from encrypted binary data?

    Theoretically, you should not be able to distinguish encrypted bits from random data. Unfortunately, people almost never send megabytes of uniformly random bits to each other, and I doubt that the Pakistani courts are going to believe your claim that you were doing such a thing. You might claim that you were sending compressed data (which may also appear to be random), but then the courts are going to ask you how it was compressed, so that they can decompress it -- and when you tell them "LZMA" and they get random bits, they are going to throw you in prison.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  23. Re:Security concerns by mangu · · Score: 2

    If you aren't doing anything bad

    TIL accessing my bank account through the internet is bad.

  24. Re:Question by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I am sure that would go over real well:

    Government: "What are you doing sending this encrypted data?!"
    Citizen: "Encrypted?! That's just random bits that I was sending to my friend in America!"
    Government: "Oh, never mind then. It's not like we have any reason to think that you would not be sending random bits to someone in America!"

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  25. Re:good luck with that by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, this is just the next step in the arms race.

    The first generation were the firewalls. The sophistication has gone from just blind IP blackholes to active MITM attacks, changing posts in midstream.

    Now, because of VPNs, the next step is to ban them, and then arresting anyone who might have any traffic out of the ordinary. With anti-VPN laws, a government can vacuum up people for "suspect packets".

    This is just what a government will do when they realize people VPN around their surveillance/censorship controls. Pakistan is the first to implement this, but I am sure they will be the last.

    It is only a matter of time before we see anti-VPN laws being passed, just like we see national firewalls sprouting up.

  26. Re:Hrrm.. by Uncle+Warthog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I smell a revolution brewing.

    So do they. That's why they're putting the ban in place.

  27. Re:Security concerns by mark-t · · Score: 2

    You are arguing from the perspective that the government is not to be trusted (which may be entirely accurate), when clearly the person you are presenting your argument to believes that is not the case. Therefore, to the person you are responding to, your argument is nothing more than a mere contradiction without logical validity.

    A much better position to take would be to simply look at fundamental issues of privacy and keeping confidential information from nefarious individuals. Even if the government and law enforcement *could* be wholly trusted, there are plenty of people who cannot, and there is absolutely no reason that such people would not be just as capable of listening in on anyone's private conversations as the government is. That they might have to break the law to do so is wholly irrelevant because, again, we are talking about people who are unscrupulous in the first place. It makes matters even worse if one considers that such people can sometimes even get away with their crimes without getting caught in the act... and the economic damage that they could do would be of staggering proportions if people are legally prohibited from taking any measures whatsoever to keep their private data confidential when communicating it to a trusted party.

  28. Re:Even rot13? by suso · · Score: 2

    Nobody is using rot13 or rot26 anymore. You should be using rot533.

  29. Re:Question by v1 · · Score: 2

    yup. The whole point of stenography is to hide the fact that you're hiding something in the first place. Most stenography methods are very poor at actually preventing the data from being confirmed as present (or even being collected) once discovered.

    But I suppose steno'ing your encrypted data would be a worthwhile endeavor. Lower the odds of them realizing you're hiding something, and then if they discover you're hiding something, make that something difficult to figure out.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  30. Re:Security concerns by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    Please list reasons why they would they disclose the fact that they can break AES256. Thank you.

    Yes, of course. Not saying that they can break AES is CLEAR PROOF that they can.

  31. Re:Security concerns by compro01 · · Score: 2

    If I had to guess, probably at the most recent meetings of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  32. Re:Security concerns by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because if they can break it they know eventually someone else WILL break it and so everything the government, the military, and the US private sector has protected with AES will be available to agents of countries hostile to the US national interest, and so they would be starting the hunt for the next standard encryption algorithm to be used for those purposes. Remember that the NSA made changes to the S-box of DES specifically to avoid attacks by methods that were not rediscovered in the general cryptography community for nearly 30 years. That change kept 3DES secure for another 5-7 years allowing them to proceed with the AES selection process. Despite what so many people think the NSA's first mission is to protect the integrity of the secrets of the US.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  33. Re:Security concerns by 0123456 · · Score: 2

    You're right, of course one of the most secretive and highly funded organizations in the world would disclose their knowledge.

    Yes, of course. Not saying that they can break AES is CLEAR PROOF that they can.

  34. Re:Question by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    DING! Rubber hose decryption is quick and effective in almost every case. This law is not about providing a technical means to stop encryption. Its purpose is to turn the targeted users into criminals. Much like the DMCA in the US.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  35. Re:Question by xrayspx · · Score: 3, Informative

    The point of stenography is to write very fast in abbreviated form, using a set of glyphs that enable you to write very quickly in terrible chicken scratch that no one other than a trained secretary can read and which drives mortals straight past drink to heroin, also called shorthand. Stenograhpy also refers to typing quickly on a special keyboard, in order to capture as much spoken dialog as possible in-line. Often seen in courtrooms.

    The point of steganography is to obscure data within other innocuous data. This is where you hide your secret missile codes in photos of cats you post on Flickr.

  36. Re:If you have nothing to hide. Nah by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With me, encryption isn't for the cops (any decent police force has a crapload of methods to obtain data, up to and including the old fashioned rubber hose). It is to lock out intruders, potential hacks, people who would maliciously alter data in flight, and people who are collecting information they have no right to. This is why I use a VPN service.

    For example, when using a Wi-Fi network, it isn't uncommon for some WISPs to intercept the data stream to do ads, log all DNS requests and URLs transferred for data mining purposes, or even insert a Web frame in a HTTP stream with their crap on it. Firing up a VPN (TLS based or PPTP) keeps them out of my business. Same with some ISPs. Why should I allow an ISP to make cash from my Web browsing from a Phorm like server, unless I get a discount on my service? Then there are attacks like FireSheep (although that specific one is mitigated by a constant SSL connection).

    Having a VPN is just the same thing as locking and arming a car alarm, or throwing a deadbolt before going to sleep. It is to keep thieves at bay.

  37. Re:good luck with that by Gutboy · · Score: 2

    Who cares about packets. What if I just start emailing people in Pakistan Base64 encoded random numbers? Will they have to prove it's random numbers? Does anyone have a list of government officials email addresses?

  38. Re:Question by plover · · Score: 2

    You mean like this? http://www.spammimic.com/index.shtml

    Dear Business person , We know you are interested in
    receiving cutting-edge information . This is a one
    time mailing there is no need to request removal if
    you won't want any more ! This mail is being sent in
    compliance with Senate bill 2516 , Title 6 ; Section
    307 . This is different than anything else you've seen
    . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich
    in 55 MONTHS ! Have you ever noticed society seems
    to be moving faster and faster and society seems to
    be moving faster and faster . Well, now is your chance
    to capitalize on this ! WE will help YOU turn your
    business into an E-BUSINESS plus deliver goods right
    to the customer's doorstep ! The best thing about our
    system is that it is absolutely risk free for you !
    But don't believe us . Mrs Simpson of Maryland tried
    us and says "I was skeptical but it worked for me"
    . We assure you that we operate within all applicable
    laws ! We implore you - act now ! Sign up a friend
    and you get half off . Thanks .

    --
    John
  39. Re:good luck with that by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    Maybe the question should be how to promote policies that prevent software engineers from going to the evil dictator side.

    Assassination seems to be a popular choice of late for dealing with technical professionals who are a bit too good at doing their jobs for the wrong sorts of people...

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  40. Pakistan is NOT benning encryption by riflemann · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a complete misread of telecoms terminology, they are not banning user encryption.

    The actual regulation only mentions encryption ONCE, and that is in regard to signalling information.

    Signalling information is not the data. I repeat, signaling information is NOT the data.

    For phone calls, signalling is the bits that tell the system where the call is go to, and who from, and other "meta" information about the call. For data, signalling is the outer part of the IP packet that carries destination information.

    The encrypted part of data is in the PAYLOAD. And they don't require the payload to be decrypted. It's also the same section that requires the
    info to not be compressed. Are they really going to decompress all files before sending them off? No way.

    All they are requiring is that the phone call source/destination info, and Ip traffic packets are not encrypted *further* by the ISP. Customer
    VPN data will continue to flow as normal.

    IAANE (I am a network engineer) and I have had to deploy a government spying^Hlegal intercept platform before, and this is pretty much just
    bog standard like many other countries do.

    Bottom line: A non story. Pakistan wants ISPs to implement legal intercept. Big whoop, most countries have already done this.

    1. Re:Pakistan is NOT benning encryption by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      "The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority legal notice urged ISPs to report customers using "all such mechanisms including EVPNs [encrypted virtual private networks] which conceal communication to the extent that prohibits monitoring". Anyone needing to use this technology needs to apply for special permission, the notice said.

      Authorities in Islamabad insisted that the ban on VPN access was intended to stem communications by terrorists."

      legal intercept? there's no legal intercept for my vpn's. they're asking isp's to report customers who evade the "legal interception" - one thing you should note that what's written on law and what's then as practicality is different.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Pakistan is NOT benning encryption by sunbird · · Score: 2

      IANANE, but the regulation does not appear to be as limited as you suggest. Part II, Section 4, Clause 5 states:

      All landing station and infrastructure licensee(s) shall establish a Monitoring System with its interface to the Authority . . . for the purpose of monitoring of telecommunications traffic (voice and data) within one hundred and twenty (120) days . . . .

      And later on in clause (6) it requires each system to have "the following features:"

      Capability to monitor, control, measure and record traffic in real-time

      The clause you are referring to (and the only reference to encryption) occurs on the next page:

      The Licensee(s) and Access Provider shall ensure that signaling information is uncompressed, unencrypted, and not formatted in a manner which the installed monitoring system is unable to decipher using installed capabilities.

      But the limitation of this clause to signaling information seems to conflict with the earlier statement that the monitoring system must be capable of recording voice and data traffic in real time. I suppose you could argue that turning over the encrypted stream is sufficient, but I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that.

      It'll be interesting to see how this is enforced. My guess will be that if they take the position that it applies to VPNs, it will not be enforced against the foreign visitor. There are many internet cafes in Pakistan and many hotels with internet service so there would be a huge logistical problem to enforce it. Sadly, Pakistanis and long-term ex-pats who use a VPN from their home or office could be targeted, especially if they are government opponents or dissidents.

    3. Re:Pakistan is NOT benning encryption by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      IAANE (I am a network engineer) and I have had to deploy a government spying^Hlegal intercept platform before, and this is pretty much just bog standard like many other countries do.

      Were you in the military? That's the only reasonable definition of 'had to' that I can come up with (vs. helping governments infringe on civil liberties for profit).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  41. Re:Hrrm.. by frisket · · Score: 2

    Not really, this is just the influence of the old colonial power trickling down.

    Bullshit. The old colonial power was never that paranoid. Incompetent, self-centered, racist, arrogant, and lots of other things for sure. But this is paranoia, whether religious or political. It's a hallmark of lunatics and delusionals everywhere, particularly when they are trying to cling to ill-gotten and undeserved power.

  42. Re:Oh dear God I hope so. by jc79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... your speed limits are an offense to every thinking human ...

    Except those who have lost loved ones to motor vehicles travelling over the speed limit. Believe it or not, some regulation is actually there to preserve human life and health. Would you abolish environmental protection agencies also?

    Yes, I know it's off topic.

  43. Re:Question by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

    How about sending a whole load of spam emails, but altering the specific words and word-order in order to convey a message?

    I bet no-one is looking through spam emails and analysing it for steganography.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  44. Re:Question by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    That's a form of steganography, which of course, is horribly inefficient.

    Also it would be pretty obvious and not plausibly deniable. It's like this:

    Normal conversation:

    Bob: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
    Dave: the lazy what?
    Bob: Dog.
    Dave: Oh, I understand.

    Using your technique.

    Bob: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
    Dave: the lazy what?
    Bob: #@23dfx!;
    Dave: Oh, I understand.

    A better way to do it would be like this (maybe this is what you meant but you misspoke):

    Bob: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy #@23dfx!;.
    Dave: the lazy what?
    Bob: Dog.
    Dave: Oh, I understand.

    That could actually work.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. Re:Oh dear God I hope so. by operagost · · Score: 2

    i think the US are THE western country with the least personal freedom (hell, you can't even drink in public and your speed limits are an offense to every thinking human) and the most ridiculous religious people (remember, i said 'western').

    Speed limits, prohibitions on public drunkenness, and religious freedom are clearly the three basic tenets of fascism.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.