Slashdot Mirror


NSA Publishes Blueprint For Top Secret Android Phone

mask.of.sanity writes "The National Security Agency has designed a super-secure Android phone from commercial parts, and released the blueprints(Pdf) to the public. The doubly-encrypted phone, dubbed Fishbowl, was designed to be secure enough to handle top secret phone calls yet be as easy to use and cheap to build as commercial handsets. One hundred US government staff are using the phones under a pilot which is part of a wider project to redesign communication platforms used in classified conversations."

172 comments

  1. I want one. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That'd be the coolest geeky thing to have. Although I suspect it doesn't do you a lot of good unless both sides of the conversation is using them.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:I want one. by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Surely you mean all three sides of the conversation...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I want one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three? That my good sir is a very conservative estimate.

    3. Re:I want one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I'm sure they have whatever equipment they need, no reason to fret.

    4. Re:I want one. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're implying a back door, the overriding problem as far as I can see is that if you have a secret double encrypted phone with an option, no matter how secret, for someone else to listen in, as a secret organization you wouldn't dare use the phone. Because somehow, by hook or by crook, by bribery, blackmail or corruption from the richest countries and individuals of the world, that back door *will* be made available to foreign powers. It's inevitable.

      And so, the NSA will have created a phone that the NSA itself could not use.

      If it had been intended as a honey pot, then bravo. Otherwise, no.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:I want one. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      don't rely on it too much... these are the same folks who sold captured German Enigma machines to foreign governments in the 50s saying they're unbreakable.

    6. Re:I want one. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Right, but they weren't stupid enough to use the Enigma machine *themselves*, knowing that it had been broken. If the NSA is planning to use the phones, the NSA must think they're secure. If they're planning to build them and not use them, the phones are bait for very stupid organizations. Either way it would be interesting to own one, although you probably shouldn't call your tax accountant with it.

      And as I said in another article, if the NSA thinks they can include a back door and somehow think they can keep it secret so that they could use the phones themselves, I'd be very very disappointed in them.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:I want one. by cavreader · · Score: 2

      Well they probably didn't really care since the Polish and England scientists already figured it out. And the "folks" making the statement you mentioned were most likely utterred by an one or two individuals not the organization as a whole. The US was more interested in moving nuclear physics from the white board to real world applications such as building nuclear weapons. Wasting resources on something already accomplished by others would have been a waste. And by the way England had a large head start with the information 2 Polish scientists were able to get out of the country before the Germans took control. The early versions of the enigma machine were targeted at business uses and had been around a while before it was applied to military uses. The Poles got their hands on one of these earlier machines before the war even started and security protocols were not as stringent as they were during the war. People make the mistake of judging US capabilities displayed in the past with the capabilities it now possesses.

    8. Re:I want one. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And so, the NSA will have created a phone that the NSA itself could not use.

      And this surprises you how, exactly?

      Most security boils down to "security by obscurity" when you get past all the smoke and mirrors. Someone at the top above all the compartmentalization made the decision that he simply won't tell anyone about the back door. Except for Dan in Dept A where such a backdoor would be very VERY useful, you know, to keep tabs on the operatives, etc; and Roger in Dept B whose job it is to keep tabs on Dept A. Both Dan and Roger are trustworthy and sworn to secrecy, so there's no way that this back-door will be abused or leaked. Ever. Except...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:I want one. by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The NSA has been pretty good at strengthening commercial encryption. Part of their mandate is to help strengthen America's commercial security infrastructure as well as to hack that same security infrastructure, which makes them not so trustworthy in some eyes but practical helpers in others. Aside from the Clipper chip, the NSA helped strengthen DES through changes to the S-box, helped make Windows 7 more secure by working with Microsoft (lol), and of course, SE Linux.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    10. Re:I want one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually has a cunning DOUBLE back door that allows people to listen in, but allows the NSA to know precisely who's listening.

    11. Re:I want one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no back door - it is a front door. As described in the published specifications, the security is not end-to-end, it is end-to-enterprise.

    12. Re:I want one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, the NSA over and over again has provided improvements to open specs for encryption that ended up making them stronger as soon as someone not held to secrecy discovered why. The NSA's number one priority is making stuff impossible to crack, not to develop some super secret back door to trick you into using. The latter hurts the NSA at least as much as it helps. They can't guarantee the enemy can't do the same thing they can.

    13. Re:I want one. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  2. Double Encryption??? by msgmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow sounds very secure, hopefully they did n't decide to go with ROT-13 twice.

    1. Re:Double Encryption??? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Watches the contrails of the age-old ROT-13 twice joke go streaming by far, far above AC's head.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "chemtrails" - this is the guvment after all :)

    3. Re:Double Encryption??? by alostpacket · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only double secure, but if you're caught doing something nefarious, they put you on double secret probation. They have also contacted Double Mint Gum about possible trademark licensing.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    4. Re:Double Encryption??? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      I'm using Cyrillic alphabet, you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with ROT-13 encryption? It's less than AES-256, right?

    6. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid you actually read something in your life before making a comment. I think the image in the article was pretty clear...

      http://i.haymarket.net.au/News/NSA%202%20layers%20of%20encryption.PNG

      hahaha... you're pretty dumb. hahaha... how can you not get what he is saying? God forbid you actually have a personality.

    7. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, it would be possible to break the encryption using a double rainbow table?

    8. Re:Double Encryption??? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      It started as TRIPLE-ROT13, though.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    9. Re:Double Encryption??? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Why don't you ask the Romans?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Double Encryption??? by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I remember reading somewhere that consecutive encryption of a file (or a data stream) provides no additional protection against brute force attacks. The brute force needed to decrypt the end result is virtually the same, whether you encrypt once or twice. Something about a "meet in the middle" attack.

      Not sure if this is true in all cases because TripleDES is a common encryption technique.
      I (obviously) don't understand all that I read about this stuff.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Double Encryption??? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Anything is vulnerable to attacks on reduced-round variants. For full security, do what I did for this post: the full 16 rounds of ROT-13.

    12. Re:Double Encryption??? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Something lost on most people (hopefully not the NSA) is that there is no such thing as encrypting something twice. If you add two encryption functions together, you have effectively just made one new encryption function that is the sum of the two. (Probably crossproduct or something if someone who understands the math wants to be pedantic.)

      Say you encrypt your secret message with a Caesar cipher. That's not very secure, so you do 8 more rounds of Caesar. Now, to crack the encryption they have to break the Caesar cipher nine times right? Oops, what you've actually done is use ROT-1. Better do 43 more rounds of Caesar so it's even more secure!

      The point is that your new encryption algorithm that's a combination of, say, GOST and Blowfish, hasn't been studied. It's entirely possible you've made a very weak algorithm (I say quite likely, since making a good encryption algorithm is very hard). This became an issue back when people used DES. You'd think two rounds of DES with two different 56 bit keys would have 112 bits of security. In actuality, it's 57 bits of security. Three rounds of DES is vulnerable to a meet-in-the-middle attack, so Triple-DES is actually DES-encrypt with key one -> DES-decrypt with key two -> DES-encrypt with key three (or key one if you really want 112 bit security and know better than to do Double-DES).

    13. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tbq sbeovq lbh npghnyyl ernq fbzrguvat va lbhe yvsr orsber znxvat n pbzzrag. V guvax gur vzntr va gur negvpyr jnf cerggl pyrne...

      uggc://v.unlznexrg.arg.nh/Arjf/AFN%202%20ynlref%20bs%20rapelcgvba.CAT

      You were saying??

    14. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Pretty much everything you posted there is wrong.

    15. Re:Double Encryption??? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      They even got Falcon Northwest on board to paint every phone in a unique "Double Rainbow" theme.

    16. Re:Double Encryption??? by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      Nah, you just didn't understand it because it was encrypted 78 times.

    17. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read down to where it gets to triple encryption and EDE, because Triple DES is EDE and EDE is more secure.

    18. Re:Double Encryption??? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Wow sounds very secure, hopefully they did n't decide to go with ROT-13 twice.

      Not just double encryption but double secret encryption.

      My bet is on the password being 1-2-3-4-5

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:Double Encryption??? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Nobody would dare to use that password anymore, so they'll not check it. Therefore it's the most secure.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    20. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the time, yeah, it makes little to no difference. It may change the problem (though double encrypting with the same encryption may not even do that, depending on the cipher), but not make it any more difficult.

      However, that's assuming that the ciphers you're using aren't flawed. Using multiple ciphers means that if a flaw is discovered for one, it (hopefully) won't apply to the combination of the two.

    21. Re:Double Encryption??? by Hentes · · Score: 2

      No, they went with XOR twice.

    22. Re:Double Encryption??? by Tom · · Score: 1

      One of the basic rules of cryptography is that you need to understand fully what you're doing, because it's complicated and has side-effects.

      In many cases, encrypting something multiple times does not increase the strength of the encryption, and may even reduce it. Sometimes, though, it does.

      In the case of 3DES, avoiding the meet-in-the-middle attack is one of the reasons that it is set up the way it is (two encryptions with one decryption in the middle).
      But it is a good example - a novice would think that two encryption and one decryption step make the equivalent of one encryption.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:Double Encryption??? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Brute force is out of question if the cipher is secure and implemented correctly. Regarding techniques without brute force, it depends. If the keys are really independent and the system is designed with care it can and usually will be more secure. If I remember correctly, for two keys often triple encryption with minimum key (TEMK) is used and there is a proof that it is no less secure than single-pass encryption. (If you want, you can also take this as a confirmation of your claim.)

      Generally speaking, increasing rounds or encryption passes can make the encryption more secure but careful cryptanalysis is needed to ensure it is not actually weakened. When encrypting twice, it is better to use two different ciphers than the same one and the keys must both be secure (enough entropy) and independent from each other.

    24. Re:Double Encryption??? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      ROT-13 twice? Pfft. I optimized my own crypto functions by hand and get it all done with a single pass of ROT-26.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    25. Re:Double Encryption??? by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

      It's been awhile since I read Applied Cryptography, but I'm pretty sure the intro chapter of that book talks about how the Romans were using something a bit more sophisticated than ROT-13. It was essentially state-of-the-art cryptography for their time. It could be broken, yes, but it wasn't nearly as simple as ROT-13.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    26. Re:Double Encryption??? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      The Roman empire lasted for almost 1000 years. I'm sure they had a few technological innovations during that time. That doesn't detract from the fact that ROT-13 was invented by the Romans, nor does it exclude the possibility of them inventing more advanced encryption and also being able to call that more advanced thechnology "Roman encryption technology"...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    27. Re:Double Encryption??? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1
      "Double Mint Gum"

      Don't do that to me. You make my brain go strange places.

      I'm picturing a security-focussed Linux-based portable computer, that uses the Linux Mint distribution, but only a really stripped-down, bare-minimum installation. Just enough that once you set up the password to log in, you can then run a virtual machine from an encrypted loopback device which actually contains a "full" Linux Mint distribution.

      And then you install that setup on one of these...

      "Double Mint Gum(stix)"

    28. Re:Double Encryption??? by kriston · · Score: 1

      From what the PDF document is describing, the notion of "double encryption" is referring to the two security layers being used.

      First, the SVoIP is encrypted using DES-SRTP.

      Second, the SVoIP stream is tunnelled in a secure VPN layer--in this case IPsec IKEv2--which has its own encryption layer.

      Once at the enterprise there is a third encryption but it's not really a "layer" because it's not in the public network. The one to and from the SIP server is "SIP over TLS" but that's inside the private network, here called "Enterprise Mobility Infrastructure."

      --

      Kriston

    29. Re:Double Encryption??? by kriston · · Score: 1

      Correction: I meant to type:
      "First, the SVoIP is encrypted using SDES-SRTP."

      Another diagram suggests this "SDES-SRTP" can also be SIP/TLS.

      --

      Kriston

    30. Re:Double Encryption??? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      From what I see, it seems that "double encryption" simply means using encrypted channels to send already encrypted data, which is generally a good thing. An analog might be to use a VPN to connect to a corporate network in order to block people outside the organization from having access to your data stream, but then also encrypting the email you send to a party within the organization so that even the IT staff cannot read your message since they may have a more restricted security clearance than you and/or the receiving party.

      Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that somebody out there isn't out to get you.

      From a purely technical standpoint, it's true that encrypting data twice provides no real assurance of increased randomness, but in practice, standard ciphers like 3DES, Blowfish, etc. provide strong enough encryption that it's rarely beneficial to try to use brute force anyway! It's almost always easier to do it some other way. (EG: exploit the smartphone/computer, beat the guy with a $5 wrench until he talks, etc)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    31. Re:Double Encryption??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND they included a tracebuster, you'd need a tracebuster-buster to trace that badboy down! BUT you can get the tracebuster-buster-buster addon for only $99,99!

  3. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not quite top secret anymore. Unless they think Slashdot's following just doesn't matter. I cry fowl!

    1. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      not quite top secret anymore. Unless they think Slashdot's following just doesn't matter. I cry fowl!

      Chicken.

    2. Re:uh by Skapare · · Score: 2

      The article references conversations as secret, not the phone. Titles do get morphed on Slashdot. That's just the way of things.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    3. Re:uh by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      RFC 2549 is not an encryption standard, and is highly vulnerable to man-in-the-middle (with shotgun) attacks.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the tukeys of war!

  4. Will it fit... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a shoe?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Will it fit... by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Will it give you a clue?

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:Will it fit... by Maintenance+Goof · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since this is not a secure channel, I think we should use the cone of silence!

    3. Re:Will it fit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    4. Re:Will it fit... by hraponssi · · Score: 1

      Since the Japanese just built the speech-jamming gun, use that for cone of silence, stick this into your shoe and your are done. Sweet.

    5. Re:Will it fit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if you're a kangaroo

  5. Flip side of that coin? by aoeu · · Score: 1

    If you get caught with one you are presumed to be working for a TLA.

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
    1. Re:Flip side of that coin? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but there are plenty of people who walk around working for TLAs all the time and not really trying to hide it. Perhaps they'd still like to encrypt their conversations?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Flip side of that coin? by mlts · · Score: 1

      That's why I wish these could be sold to the US masses. That way, it may or not be someone working for a TLA, but perhaps someone who wants some decent on phone security.

      Pre-ICS, one thing that Motorola [1] phones had as an advantage was the ability to encrypt internal storage as well as the SD card. The advantage of this, especially coupled with remote wipe and wipe after "x" amount of bad password tries should be obvious.

      It would be nice to have an Android device that can run apps, but still be designed for decent security, even if someone's E-mails matter to only them.

      [1]: OK, since Google owns Motorola Mobility fair and square, they really need to start unlocking bootloaders.

    3. Re:Flip side of that coin? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 0

      That's why I wish these could be sold to the US masses.

      Whoa whoa... hold on just a minute. The average person is innocent and therefore has nothing to hide thus rendering encryption unnecessary.

    4. Re:Flip side of that coin? by tqk · · Score: 2

      The average person is innocent and therefore has nothing to hide thus rendering encryption unnecessary.

      Yo, identity theft? The TLAs aren't the only people after all your seeeecret stuff. If I drop my phone and don't notice it, I like to know it's locked and nobody's going to get any use of it, or any of the data that's stored on it. I'd really hate it if losing it hurt someone who's info was stored on it.

      On the other hand, would I trust the NSA to not enable a back door? Probably not (and I don't even particularly dislike them).

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Flip side of that coin? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I agree. And as an added bonus you reduce the opportunities for other countries to steal your countries business secrets. And before you get worried about your government not catching terrorists, realize that the key servers would be kept safely in your country (accessible by warrant). Google could score big by including this in their next version (only usable with other android phones of course).

    6. Re:Flip side of that coin? by mlts · · Score: 2

      One can do mental gymnastics, but this is how I look at it:

      If the NSA has a backdoor, eventually someone will find it and then glean knowledge of how they work. This may weaken them in the end. Plus, even if the NSA did, they can't really use it unless it would be an extremely high value target, or else their hand gets tipped.

      A similar argument can be mounted against SELinux and PGP, where if the NSA did have backdoors, they would have to be extremely clever, as well as not used unless the target is extremely high value.

    7. Re:Flip side of that coin? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to have an Android device that can run apps, but still be designed for decent security, even if someone's E-mails matter to only them.

      It's been there for a while. Look under Settings/Security/Encrypt Tablet for ISC. Earlier versions had the setting under Location and Security.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    8. Re:Flip side of that coin? by heroid1a · · Score: 1

      Y'know I hate to do this, but... whoosh!

    9. Re:Flip side of that coin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. It is on tablets, and also with ICS. However, most Froyo or Gingerbread phones don't have this, except for Motorola's offerings (Droid X, Atrix line, etc.)

  6. transparent case and dip switches... by jdogalt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All I've really wanted for christmas for the last 10 years is a phone easily disassemblable, with a transparent case, and user facing dip switches for the mic, the antennas, the battery, and these days, the power line going to the camera. Or alternately for the camera, a physical piece of plastic that slides to expose/cover the camera. Also the dip switches should be placed in such a way that it is reasonably convincing to technical users that they are in fact breaking the relevant physical traces/wires.

    Maybe in 10 more years...

    1. Re:transparent case and dip switches... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      You can have that. There are developer kits that you can glom together to make them. But it will be the size of a lunchbox, and be engineered just to your specifications. I suggest that you look to ham radio to to start your development.

      Remember, if you wanted all that capability ten-ish years ago you would have something the size of, and the cost of, a news van.

      see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_news_gathering

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:transparent case and dip switches... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      It's called a battery pull. Sure, there might be a smaller battery or capacitor sitting somewhere powering the device in a stealthy manner, but that would be a concern even with your DIP switch theory--someone might put a smaller transmitter on the back of your microphone to enable signals to be sent while the DIP switch to the "real" transmitter is ostensibly disabled.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:transparent case and dip switches... by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      It's called a battery pull. Sure, there might be a smaller battery or capacitor sitting somewhere powering the device in a stealthy manner, but that would be a concern even with your DIP switch theory--someone might put a smaller transmitter on the back of your microphone to enable signals to be sent while the DIP switch to the "real" transmitter is ostensibly disabled.

      Or you just think it's a DIP switch, but it's really a thermoelectric device that uses the temperature difference between the front and back of the phone while it is in your pocket to generate a micro-current that powers a nanoscale audio recorder.

  7. Microsoft about to sue government? by JonahsDad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just wondering when Microsoft sues the NSA for patent infringement for using Android.

  8. Gotta love /. headlines... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sensationalistic, inaccurate, or self-contradictory, pick any two.

    1. Re:Gotta love /. headlines... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Is all of the above not an option?

    2. Re:Gotta love /. headlines... by kat_skan · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is but there's a trick to it. You just have to pick two different ones when they post the dupe.

    3. Re:Gotta love /. headlines... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      s/any/at least/

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Gotta love /. headlines... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      +1

  9. Security Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a classified conversation or meeting without prior notification to your FSO and/or outside of a classified environment is a no-no.

    So what is the point of having a mobile phone?

    1. Re:Security Violation by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, maybe being able to use it inside the secured faciltiy? I worked at DIA for a while, and if someone wasn't at their desk, aside from leaving a sticky note for them, the only thing you could do is walk around and look for them or wait. Outside of work, I could call, text, email, facebook, IM, etc. But at work, there was email to their desk, call their desk, or nothing. A secured cell phone to take with you when you walk around would make things so much easier.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Security Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that there are hundreds of thousands of staff who actually work inside a SCIF and are perfectly authorised to have classified communication without prior notification to anyone (because everyone they work with operates at the TS level); almost every discussion they have would be at the TS level.

      That being said there is no codeword on this device making SI frustrating.

    3. Re:Security Violation by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Um, maybe being able to use it inside the secured faciltiy? I worked at DIA for a while,

      Date In Asia (.com)?

      Why do you need a super secure smartphone in that job?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  10. Specification, not blueprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The link is to a specification, not a blueprint. A blueprint is enough information to build the product. A specification defines the products behaviour, but is only the first step. You still have to design the product.

  11. Hmmmm... by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (dons tin foil hat) Do they really want phones like these to become inexpensive and easy to produce? Would we have been able to locate bin Laden if the courier and the whole group had these? Is there a back door hidden in the design that allows the NSA access? (removes tin foil hat)

    1. Re:Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My assumption would be it's much easier to hack/leverage the endpoint (maybe with a pipe?) to tap into the transmission than to intercept the communications to begin with, so if they actually need to be in on the conversation they'll either bug one of the suspects, or exploit the server used as the vpn endpoint (assuming they're not actually phone to phone vpns, in which case A. neat and B. Internet accessable IP?)

    2. Re:Hmmmm... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      These phones wouldn't have saved him. The calls still use the public network so are still traceable, and all the phones need access to the same key server. Knowing that MR x is a terrorist, you can assume anyone he calls might be a terrorist so you investigate them. And knowing where the key server is means you can get the codes to read the call.

    3. Re:Hmmmm... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      We didn't locate Bin Laden because his courier had shitty phones. We located Bin Laden because we caught some dude on the battlefield and Gitmod him with a five dollar wrench until he coughed up the courier's name (along with, presumably, part of his lungs). Even using a secure sat phone or encrypted phone wouldn't help Bin Laden because we would have triangulated on the signals, caught the guy, then Gitmo'd him with a five dollar wrench. In a practical sense, XKCD still has it right. If we want to catch your ass without Constitutional concerns, then we wouldn't bother with decryption.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  12. Research In Motion by Mabbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, that should be the final nail in the coffin for the Blackberry. I've been saying for the last 2 years: All RIM has going is the fact that they have a secure phone. All someone needs to do is offer an Android-based phone with the same level of security, and they will have lost the only real selling point remaining that they had.

    1. Re:Research In Motion by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      MOD UP!

      Why in the hell was the parent modded a Troll? It's arguably flamebait, but surely not trolling. BTW, I agree. RIM is riding out their momentum on previous loyal clients. Specifically the ones in the financial district such as banks and whatnot. But the days of RIM are numbered. Poor guys. If I was employed there, I would be writing my exit strategy to find another place of employment. Hopefully RIM make the smart move and adopt the Droid platform for at least core functionality and API integration.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  13. fishbowl !=blowfish by optimism · · Score: 5, Interesting

    re: "The doubly-encrypted phone, dubbed Fishbowl"

    A strange combination of clever and ironic.
    Fishbowl is an anagram of Blowfish, though I dunno if they use that cipher.
    However to most folks, a fishbowl is something in clear view, under close observation.
    Quirky.

    1. Re:fishbowl !=blowfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      It's doubly-encrypted, so they use Twofish.

    2. Re:fishbowl !=blowfish by Nethead · · Score: 1

      This had to bring a smile to Bruce's face.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:fishbowl !=blowfish by treeves · · Score: 1

      "Did you ever fly a kite in bed? Did you ever walk with ten cats on your head?"

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  14. Anyone remember NATO's phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back when cell phones had analogue circuits you could sometimes spot a red NATO phone. On the technological trash heap of history now.

  15. Wait by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Where is the schematic for this thing??

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  16. In the Darkness of Redaction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone Read the PDF?

    Page 98 ... Anyone wonder what was Redaction in and around the red horizontal box?

    "The Mobility Program enables the mobile warfighter to access secure
    government enterprise services from any device, anywhere, anytime."

    now seriously ctrl-c ctrl-v did the job... but i wonder what wireshark + SRTP/SDES dev tool kit and a 2L of coke and Large NYC pizza would produce ;) bah only the imagination can Dream!

  17. Where was it made? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    I hope not in China for the obvious reasons.

    The design of the phone itself may be super-secure, but for it to be genuinely secure you need to have absolute faith in the integrity of the company building the thing.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Where was it made? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The NSA has its own fab. They can make their own chips if they so choose. Depending on the level of security needed I'm sure they will.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:Where was it made? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      The NSA has its own fab. They can make their own chips if they so choose. Depending on the level of security needed I'm sure they will.

      They may have their own fab .. but from TFA ..

      “The plan was to buy commercial components, layer them together and get a secure solution,”

      You have to be able to trust the entire supply chain. In addition, they are talking about 3rd parties building these (who won't access to NSA systems) .. so why should I trust a 3rd party any more than I trust any other telecoms supplier?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Where was it made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that the NSA of all organizations realises that the secret to security isn't to make something impossible to crack, but to take a good, long look at the value of the secret(IE the cost to hide the cat once it's out of the bag) versus the cost of the equipment. If it costs less to hide the cat while it's running around enjoying its freedom than it costs to keep the cat in the bag, then it makes no sense to spend more than that amount keeping the cat tied up.

      To put it another way, you don't have to make it impossible for someone to compromise you, you just have to make it really really difficult for them to do a good job at reliably compromising you, which qualifiers imply that the expense is much greater in the latter case.

    4. Re:Where was it made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of a SIPRNet compromise might as well be infinite which is why no expense is spared in protecting it. The cap is on how much value worth of intel you can put in SIPRNet based on funding limitations. At some point, you have more intel than you can fit in your budget so presented with a choice between erasing intelligence or giving up on risk/reward calculations, your job eventually becomes spending enough money on protection so that no adversary exists which can get past the barriers to entry to the infinite rewards of success.

      In other words: the fastest camper philosophy is for mortals. When you've got lucky charms, you have no option but leaving your dick hanging in the wind and hoping nobody can jump that high.

    5. Re:Where was it made? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      The publicly released document claims they wanted to make it using commercial off-the-shelf components. That doesn't mean that every one of these was made with cots parts, or that they don't have the option to make an in-house-parts only version if they deem it necessary.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:Where was it made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure those Chinese produced resistors are safe to use.

  18. Double encryption.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...like double DES, because that's theoretically TWICE as secure as DES, right? Right? Of course, it MUST be. It's DOUBLE!

    Or maybe this phone uses the awesome power of Double ROT-13!

    1. Re:Double encryption.... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've not heard of TDEA.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  19. Rogue Apps by losttoy · · Score: 2

    Remember, double encrypting rogue apps in AES does not make them good. The traditional approach towards security doesn't work very well in the mobile world especially Android. You have to not only do the regular things like encrypt but have a strict login such that they cannot run any app other than authorized. Not even the HTML5 stuff because it doesn't matter how locked down the phone is - once you allow an app on the phone that can access the data, it is game over.

    1. Re:Rogue Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please refer to the recent developments whereby the NSA has released their famed Security Enhancements now for Android. Strong Type Enforcement and Mandatory Access Controls addresses exactly what you said needs to be addressed.

      Done and done.

    2. Re:Rogue Apps by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You could achieve high level security on an otherwise standard iphone by inserting an inline encryption engine before the radio/modem and having it handle the security. Proper sand-boxing of apps and only allowing apps that passed a security audit will round out the requirements.

  20. Pay to have them done in the USA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, NSA, DOD, CIA, etc should be paying motorola/Google to build these SECURELY in the USA. Having this produced in China is NOT how you get secured communications.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Pay to have them done in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and...they took our jerbs!

    2. Re:Pay to have them done in the USA by mlts · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind Motorola doing exactly this.

      Heck, Motorola can use the same hardware for their mass produced phones so they benefit from economies of scale. The difference could be a dedicated sub-ROM chip that gets code loaded on at a TS/SCI cleared facility (the same way the old Clipper chips were made in a normal facility, then the Skipjack algorithm was loaded.)

      This way, most phones can have unlocked bootloaders and are free to run the latest CM version, while the phones for secure duty get the added code.

  21. secret phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a top-secret comment.

  22. It'll be three weeks... by EmagGeek · · Score: 0

    ... until Anonymous and WIkileaks publish recordings of phone calls made on the phones...

  23. Not a good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was at the talk yesterday (at the RSA Conference) where NSA IAD director Margaret Salter presented this information. While the linked article is mostly factually correct, it glosses over or misses quite a few things. In no particular order:

    * NSA's goal was to produce a spec for how to use commercial devices and commercial carriers yet still meet the requirements for SECRET or higher classified comms *without* forcing every user to be a COMSEC custodian. IMO, this represents a *huge* change in NSA's outlook on COMSEC and security in general. In the past, their focus has always been "security first, regardless of the impact on usability." Fishbowl's goals are an intriguing departure from this mindset.
    * The selection of Android was not a starting point, but the outcome of a selection process that included requirements like "we have to be able to get the OS tweaked to meet our needs." The relative openness of Android played well against this requirement.
    * Fishbowl currently only works on one handset. Salter declined to say which one, but it was clearly a Motorola product. Again, this was related to technical requirements around customization, boot loaders, etc
    * The article gets it right about IPSEC vs SSLVPN but falls short of detailing the laundry list of things NSA wanted but was ultimately unable to obtain. It's clear that as the landscape evolves, NSA will update the fishbowl spec. For example, if someone made available an Android that supported Suite B, I think that would appear on the spec immediately.
    * Salter did address the issue of rogue apps directly. She said that Fishbowl basically required policy support for locking out unapproved app installs, and that only NSA approved apps from the NSA enterprise app store would be allowed. "we don't want to be in the business of accrediting Angry Birds" is as close a quote as I can manage from memory.
    * The best question from the audience was when someone asked if, by publishing a spec on how to do encrypted secure comms on an Android, her division hadn't made the job of the SIGINT spooks impossibly more difficult. She somewhat artfully dodged/refused to answer, and simply said that her job was to protect the data and communications of the US Government. My take: draw your own conclusions about NSA's ability to break IPSEC.

    The talk was interesting, well presented, and completely sold out. I got one of the last 5 or 6 seats before they stopped letting people in the room.

    1. Re:Not a good article by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      * Salter did address the issue of rogue apps directly. She said that Fishbowl basically required policy support for locking out unapproved app installs, and that only NSA approved apps from the NSA enterprise app store would be allowed. "we don't want to be in the business of accrediting Angry Birds" is as close a quote as I can manage from memory.

      Disgruntled Poultry, the classified version, because everything on this is probably classified.

    2. Re:Not a good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly maybe I've got the wrong take on it but the NSA *SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO MAKE SIGINTS JOB HARDER*. While it sounds douchey on the one hand, if the NSA can pull it off, you can bet there are suitably intelligent, motivated and financed 'persons of interest' doing the same. The best thing possible is for the NSA to be 3 steps ahead and hopefully give SIGINT the lead time to to either crack stuff that's still cutting edge or know that it is currently infeasible and plan for alternate methods of communications interception (perhaps discovering that either more assets or personnel need to be placed into a foreign organization in order to gain access to necessary information before it hits the lines.) Assuming access to either route of information is placing your eggs in one basket, which I very much doubt any intelligence community does.

    3. Re:Not a good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone please mod the parent up, if for nothing else than at least for the first point and Salter's take on the last question mentioned.

      I think that, as someone else mentioned, the name "Fishbowl" is significant in that it signals the NSA's realization that you can't balance secure communications against an ability to intercept communications, since any backdoor will be leaked or discovered. This is meant to be a fishbowl in the sense that you know exactly what the phone is doing -- it's a promise that there are no back doors, but that this is actually secure communication. At the government level this makes total sense: it's frankly more important to secure internal comms from the Opposition than it is to be able to spy on internal comms.

      Whether or not Fishbowl is ever commercially available is another question; this may well be restricted to government distribution only without any thought to having a consumer version available. On the other hand, if a Fishbowl product does enter the retail market, I wouldn't count on cryptography to provide the interception ability that NSA wants, but rather on side channels like Facebook-style quasi-spyware collecting information (even dsp'ing and transcribing voice ala Google Voice on a customer's own hardware?). Government-run MITM interception may be in for legal scrutiny as the pendulum of permissibility swings from fevered heyday of PATRIOT-style legislation to the current and unanimous SCOTUS slapdown against GPS tracking: there's a new emphasis on privacy, especially as the US sees itself lagging in that field in comparison to Europe, and the NSA may be hedging against having their interception abilities curtailed. Someone at Ft. Meade has to have already gamed out, "What if Congress or SCOTUS shuts down our wiretapping abilities so that cryptographically attacking intercepted encoded phone calls is verboten? How do we still get the intel we want?"

      On the third hand, if the phone does reach the consumer market, maybe NSA thinks that truly secure communications doesn't pose as much of a threat to national security as insecure communications. Maybe allowing the Opposition (whoever that may be) to communicate securely and without interception is considered a lesser price to pay than letting industrial and financial secrets leak from the sieves.

    4. Re:Not a good article by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      * The best question from the audience was when someone asked if, by publishing a spec on how to do encrypted secure comms on an Android, her division hadn't made the job of the SIGINT spooks impossibly more difficult. She somewhat artfully dodged/refused to answer, and simply said that her job was to protect the data and communications of the US Government. My take: draw your own conclusions about NSA's ability to break IPSEC.

      There's a cost/benefit tradeoff here. In general I'd say it's better to have excellent defenses that even yourself can't penetrate, than to make sure everyone is weak. They used to play that game, and it's repeatedly been shown to be folly.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Not a good article by subreality · · Score: 1

      On the last point, I'm willing to take them at face value. They earned a lot of credibility when DES was being designed. They approved the basic design, but made some changes to some minor details of the design. No one outside the NSA knew why for years. Eventually differential cryptanalysis was publicly discovered, and in retrospect it became clear that the NSA's changes were to defend against the attack.

      So yes, the NSA appears to put deploying real security firmly ahead of compromising other people's security.

    6. Re:Not a good article by Tom · · Score: 1

      someone asked if, by publishing a spec on how to do encrypted secure comms on an Android, her division hadn't made the job of the SIGINT spooks impossibly more difficult. She somewhat artfully dodged/refused to answer, and simply said that her job was to protect the data and communications of the US Government. My take: draw your own conclusions about NSA's ability to break IPSEC.

      Doesn't necessarily follow. The NSA has these two different and often conflicting missions. And I know that if I were in the second one (what she said), I would make damn sure that my own spooks can't break it. Because if they can, so can someone else.

      Her dodge is probably due to this conflict, which I'm sure is constantly generating friction within the NSA.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:Not a good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does it. I already hate OPSEC enough as it is, and you're suggesting that they make it harder to get anything done.

      From an OPSEC perspective, the perfect configuration is to just turn all the equipement off, so let's do that, and then not get *anything* done.

      I've had it. I'm getting out of the business. I'm going to go get another job in a different, more wholesome industry. Something like algorithmic trading.

    8. Re:Not a good article by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Exactly right, and it's not a dodge at all.

      NSA has two separate missions that are both in conflict and complementary.

      Folks here will immediate assume "OMG BACKDOORZ!@!@!!111" when in reality NSA's job is BOTH to break other peoples' systems while protecting our own. Having intentional vulnerabilities in our own encryption schemes is counterproductive on a number of levels.

      That won't stop people from believing what they want to believe, however.

    9. Re:Not a good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man I wish I had seen this presentation, as it is clear the presentation you saw included discussion of major changes in attitude and approach.

      I read the attached PDF, and my initial thought was "Great solution for SBU information, and provides a growth path to Type 1 operation if you add hardware, but not remotely Type 1 capable."

      If the architecture presented in the paper is indeed being allowed to protect classified (as opposed to merely SBU) information without custom hardware (or at the very least, some serious FPGA work such as Xilinx SCC - http://www.xilinx.com/applications/aerospace-and-defense/secure-solutions/index.htm ) - that's a complete change in thinking. As described, I don't think it would be allowed to protect SECRET, let alone TS.

  24. Did they check for Carrier IQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately the government didn't read the small print on the EULA and didn't notice that CarrierIQ was installed on the phone....'for their benefit'... but hey Carrier IQ promise not to do anything bad with all the data on their servers.

  25. Bomb the Taliban? There's an app for that! by Wookie_CD · · Score: 0

    it'll be interesting to see what official uses such a secure infrastructure will be put to as time passes

    1. Re:Bomb the Taliban? There's an app for that! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Angry "Birds" indeed.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  26. They are smarter than that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MS knows that the government controls patents and that national security is a grounds that the government can take a patent away and make it public domain.

    Interestingly enough the NSA has special status when it comes to patents. They can file secret patents that remain classified until someone tries to patent the same thing. At such time their patent is revealed and is valid from that date of revelation.

  27. In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Telephone leaks YOU!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  28. I kinda doubt it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So let's have a look and see what classified information has ever been leaked by Wikileaks. Looks like just the diplomatic cables and video that came from Bradley Manning. Well guess what? That wasn't a hack, that was a person with access, that misused their access to give the information to an unauthorized party. That kind of thing has been going on as long as there have been spys and it is something the intelligence community works on (preventing or exploiting depending on) all the time.

    Past that? Nothing. I see nothing from Anonymous getting on to JWICS and grabbing and releasing tons of documents. They've DDoS'd webservers (and failed to DDoS others, Amazon proved to be too big a target) and gotten in to people who have security holes, but they don't seem to be able to get at the classified networks.

    Maybe, just maybe, the NSA is a little better at signals security than you give them credit for.

  29. Aaaand that about wraps it up for RIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of RIM's most ironclad money-for-life lynchpins has been their contracts with the government and the military, providing secure communication devices. As the narrator of Fallout once said, "Life in the Vault is about to change."

  30. cool one to try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in your browser address bar - type "illuminati" backwards and then add ".com" and see what site pops up ... they have a sense of humor!

    1. Re:cool one to try by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... It's registered by a "John Fenley" from Provo, UT. Adding insult to injury, the domain is registered through GoDaddy.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    2. Re:cool one to try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you google itanimulli.com the top result is the NSA website.

      https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=itanimulli.com&psj=1&oq=itanimulli.com&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2990l10910l0l13085l14l14l0l1l1l0l151l890l12.1l13l0&gs_l=hp.3..0l10.2990l10910l0l13085l14l14l0l1l1l0l151l890l12j1l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=88c33d31734d390&biw=782&bih=447

  31. You could RTFA by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where you'd find out the encryption isn't about apps, but about the calls. The NSA requires it so that in the event there is a failure in the implementation of one of the encryption layers, that isn't an automatic compromise.

    In terms of app control yes, it only gets apps from a DoD run app store. The phones can only get apps that the NSA has decided are ok. The control actually goes further than that, in that to place a call you connect to signals and they then route your call to the requested party. So you can't even just call whomever you'd like, you have to go through a central point (which means they can track who called who).

    You have to remember the NSA is not new to this game. They are pretty much the best the world has ever seen at signals intelligence, and they were doing encryption back in the days when nobody had heard of such a thing. They are pretty good at it. Well their mission isn't only signals intelligence (as in capturing and decoding information from non-US entities) but also information assurance, meaning protecting US government communications.

    Further, they have a mission to help protect US civilian interests like helping keep electronic banking secure. This is why you see things like this phone, or SELinux, released to the public.

    1. Re:You could RTFA by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to remember the NSA is not new to this game. They are pretty much the best the world has ever seen at signals intelligence, and they were doing encryption back in the days when nobody had heard of such a thing.

      Are you suggesting they also invented time travel and ventured back in time to before AD?

      Encryption is a VERY old discipline, and was being used for more than a thousand years by the time Leonardo da Vinci was even born.

  32. Old line by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    Since the USA claimed that pedo-terrorists were the only ones that used encryption, what is the NSA trying to tell us.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    1. Re:Old line by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There's the morons in charge: politicians. Then, there's the nerds hiding in the back who actually know something: NSA.

      It's pretty much like any corporation when you think about it!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  33. Redacting a PDF... how not to do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you can highlight and copy the text in the redacted areas...

    GG NSA.

    1. Re:Redacting a PDF... how not to do it... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, care to take bets on the idea that the "redacted" text is not actually what was redacted - but was just placed their to be the low hanging fruit to satisfy idiots like you?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  34. it is SELinux stupid. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    SELinux has a history with the NSA; it's known. anything Linux related will leverage that history. Actually, I thought that MS complained and used their corrupt influence to cut down on the governments contributions to linux.

    1. Re:it is SELinux stupid. by Calos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know. This wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  35. stupid does not work like wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stupid secures stuff by more stupidity only

  36. Re:It's clear what's going on here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice conspiracy theory. The government chose Android for the same reason the military is giving the finger to defense contractors every time they try to sucker them with vendor lock-in.

    Get serious. We're talking about Apple here. This is the same company that forces end customers to deal with warranty service through them directly instead of retailers. Idiot consumers may be stupid enough to sign off on "the human centi-pad" but the national security types apparently can actually read before they sign up for Apple's dick in their mouth.

  37. What? by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    So someone's been selling insecure phones eh? Every phone sold should be completely secure, what went wrong with regular phones and can it be fixed?

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  38. To bad none of you actualy read the PDF by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    First of all it is not a "blueprint" for the device, it is a specification for a very secure device.

    Second of all no place in the document does it say, "this device uses android"

    The references to Android are as follows, all of them:

    Requirements Description DC.1 "The Device Configuration and Policy Management service shall be able to determine the configuration of the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2."

    Requirements Description DC.3 "The Device Configuration and Policy Management service shall be able to configure the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2."

    Requirements Description DC.4 "The Device Configuration and Policy Management service shall be able to configure policy settings for the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2."

    Requirements Description RR.1 "The Remediation service shall be able to remediate the configurations of the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2. "

    Requirements Description LT.1 "The Location Tracking service shall be able to track the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2. "

    Requirements Description W.1 "The Secure Disable and Wipe service shall be able to request audit reporting from the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2. "

    Requirements Description D.AC.1 "The Device Audit Collection service shall be able to request audit reporting from the device types and operating systems identified for use, e.g., Motorola Droid Pro with Android 2.2.. "

    So Sorry Android Fan boys and girls nothing in this document requires of specifies ANY Phone running ANY particular OS it simply references some of the features of the Motorola Droid Pro running Android 2.2

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  39. NSA can seize patents for their own and gag the in by bd580slashdot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One day I was reading James Bamford's book "The Puzzle Palace" which was all about the NSA and crypto stuff. I was sitting on the back porch of The Last Exit on Brooklyn street coffeehouse reading when I got to a chapter about a guy who had made an encrypting phone out of cheap off the shelf components. He called it the phasorphone. When he applied for a patent the NSA seized it and gagged him (that means he was threatened and coerced to not talk about it). I pointed at the name in the book and held it up to the guy across the table from me and said "Carl, is this you?". He told me a bit about it and said the NSA kept track of him all the time after that. Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 5535.02 March 24, 2010 USD(P) SUBJECT: DoD Patent Security Review Process You know, national security and all that. Because the light of democracy is so weak that it can only succeed if veiled by the cloak of secrecy, right?

  40. security first, regardless of the impact vs. AES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the past, their focus has always been "security first, regardless of the impact on usability."

    Not necessarily. Look at the AES competition about a decade ago. The winning cipher was pretty secure, but also easy to make work quickly in hardware...

  41. All that trouble to get secure voice by Animats · · Score: 1

    All NSA is doing here is trying to get secure voice over IP on a smart phone. They're not trying to secure the phone for non-voice data or support secure applications. The smart phone isn't helping; if they could get people to carry a second voice-only device, it would be far easier. A voice-only phone with all the firmware in ROM would be a much more secure device.

    1. Re:All that trouble to get secure voice by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > All NSA is doing here is trying to get secure voice over IP on a
      > smart phone.

      About time that SOMEBODY does! Go NSA.

  42. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it blend?

    1. Re:But... by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Will it blend?

      Sure Will, but it will also explode big time because you made a phone call!

  43. No not at all by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However cryptography wasn't widely used or known to the public back in the day. Also while the codes used were technically cryptography by the pure meaning of the word, they really weren't by modern thinking. They were, well, codes, secret language and the like. As an example the highly successful Navajo Code Talkers in WWII weren't using mathematical encryption, book cyphers, or the like, they were just speaking a language that nobody in Germany understood, and using special terminology.

    The public really didn't have much of a study of cryptography in the modern sense back in the day. Heck, read up on the DES process. The NBS asked for submissions and nobody presented anything useful so they went to IBM and asked them to try (IBM being the biggest civilian employer of mathematicians at the time) and they developed DES, with some consultation with the NSA (who asked them to keep a lid on things like differential cryptanalysis).

    When DES came out, it lead to a real jump start of civilian study of cryptography. People were curious about this new thing and started looking at it.

    If you want to equate coded speech with mathematical crypto, ok fine then I guess, but it really isn't. Mathematical cryptography changed the game. With codes it was all about working to understand and guess the enemy's coding scheme, and such things were done all the time. With mathematical crypto, you can design a system that is unbreakable except through brute force (which you can make infeasible) or via some sort of new discovery in cryptology.

    This is something the NSA was one of the very fist involved in, and indeed they came about due to the importance of code breaking in WWII. They were the largest employer of mathematicians in the world for a time (not sure if that is still true).

    That's what I mean by "nobody had heard of it." I don't mean they invented it, I mean the concept was pretty much unknown to the public. The idea of a mathematical system that you could use to secure information was just not something people had heard of on any large scale. The NSA was writing crypto systems back when the geeks who now use crypto all the time were doing everything in plain text.

    1. Re:No not at all by Tom · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you on most points, I don't think the absolute stands.

      Ancient codes aren't crypto by todays standards, but they were in their days, so we need to give them credit for that, or else we should stop calling AES et al crypto as well, because a thousand years from now, people with quantum computers (or whatever) will laugh at us the way we laugh about the Cesar cypher today.

      Two, the NSA and its predecessors were formed out of necessity, because there was encryption being used by the enemy, the most famous being the Enigma machines of the germans during WW2, which had been used both commercially and in the military since the early 1920s. By that fact alone we know that business people had already seen a need for cryptography almost a hundred years ago.

      The NSA is definitely top of the class today, but they weren't the first.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:No not at all by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The concept of cryptography has been around for thousands of years but the idea that security by obscurity was a bad idea is relatively new. The entire code talkers scheme was pure obscurity. The novelty is that mathematical cryptography is secure even when its mechanism is disclosed.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:No not at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As people have already pointed out, modern cryptography is actually quite old. The Beale ciphers are about 130 years old (book codes, though I'm sure the technique is older), the Vigenère cipher was first published in 1553 (polyalphabetical substitution) and monoalphabetical substitution is way, waay older than that.

      The NSA was formed in 1952. Do the math.

      While computerized cryptography is obviously a new field by comparison, it's still based on VERY old ideas. The relatively new advances within cryptography are Public Key Cryptography, but even RSA (1977) and Diffie-Hellman (1976) are based on ideas presented way back in 1874 in a book by William Stanley Jevons (reference) which describes mathematical one way functions used by asymmetric ciphers today.

      The public is also as ignorant about cryptography today as they've always been, the only difference is that computers have made using cryptography so easy that it's practically automated.

  44. The Russians used a pencil. by robably · · Score: 1

    Or you could keep your phone in a small metal tin?

    When you actually need to use your phone all those security measures for the mic/battery/antenna/etc are going to have to be disabled anyway. Easier to keep it in a tin.

  45. Re:It's clear what's going on here. by Calos · · Score: 1

    Yeowch, flamebait. That might be my first -1 comment.

    I'm guessing it provoked the ire of the Android folk? I had originally put in more against Apple to increase the level of levity, but figured I shouldn't provoke that lot. Without it, I guess people took it too seriously.

    Oh well, lesson learned. Never try to have a sense of humor when fanboys are around. Guess I'll add that to the list, right after "never get involved in a land war in Asia" and "never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  46. Re:I want one. (I DON'T) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just buy a fu**ing pre-paid phone at Walmart every time you have to make a phone call.
    The bad guys will never get your number... and neither your contacts will do!

  47. Unclear on the concept of "top secret" by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Top Secret is a secret/protection classification for information and determines who can access the information. If it has been released to the public it is not "top secret". This is a highly secure phone, not a top secret phone.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Unclear on the concept of "top secret" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it was implied that the phone itself was not TS, but could protect TS information.

      However nothing in the PDF gives me the impression of being capable of protecting S, let alone TS, without significant hardware changes to meet the NSA's redundancy/assurance requirements.

      The NSA is traditionally extremely worried about crypto engines failing - not in the term of "it broke, no longer does anything" but "it broke and is failing in a passthrough way".

  48. Re:NSA can seize patents for their own and gag the by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    The notion of a "born secret" is pretty bullshit, too, which is why the government never tried it in court. The idea is that some things are so secret that they are secret even if arrived at independently by third parties who did not use any secrets in doing so. Therefore, if you sat on a mountaintop and came up with nuclear bomb blueprints by yourself, the government would consider that classified material even though it was independently created. That's awesome in theory, but still fucking annoying.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  49. Security State is for thee, not for me by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    GPS tracking and logging, recording what you say, where you've been, what you post and what you read - the total police state. People mod me flamebait when I point out that we're living, eventually and soon, in a giant prison, a fishbowl, where the powerful get to see what we're up to, but we never see them or what they do.

    Now we have the concrete illustration. "Fishbowl". They are fucking laughing at us.

  50. You're wrong about the NSA not being able to use i by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    And so, the NSA will have created a phone that the NSA itself could not use.

    The NSA doesn't need or even want to spy on its own people. That's what the clearance process is for; to screen out 95%+ of the people who might be internal security threats. The remaining few percent are likely some form of high functioning sociopaths no one can catch until they slip up, and when they do slip up, it'll be the FBI's job to hunt them down as it is. Unlike the NSA, the FBI has legal authority to target American citizens suspected of criminal activity with far more invasive measures courtesy of the good ol' search warrant and related tools.

  51. When I read double encrypted fishbowl... by Phaid · · Score: 1

    Parnell: "Hello?"

    Leila: "Is it you? This is Leila. Are you using a SCRAMBLER?"

    Parnell: "I can't hear you, I'm using a SCRAMBLER!"

  52. I'll wait ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... for someone to find one in a bar, send it to Engadget and have them disassemble, reverse engineer, and review the phone.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  53. Blacked out text on page 98 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell me, that the black box above the text on page 98 is not intended to censor the text. Surely the NSA has learned by now that PDFs don't work that way!

  54. super secret android phone... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Undoubtedly uses SELinux

  55. Android Phone by theandroidgalaxy · · Score: 1

    At first I had Read NASA secret phone, but after reading the all post I had understood, that it's about NSA and their secret device.

  56. Re:NSA can seize patents for their own and gag the by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

    Hey, I just discovered a fast and easy way to generate really big prime numbers using.. &*#@&*$IUIUI# ....... NO CARRIER

    --
    Your ad could be here!