Slashdot Mirror


NSA Building US's Biggest Spy Center

New submitter AstroPhilosopher writes "The National Security Agency is building a complex to monitor and store 'all' communications in a million-square-foot facility. One of its secret roles? Code-breaking your private, personal information. Everybody's a target. Quoting Wired: 'Breaking into those complex mathematical shells like the AES is one of the key reasons for the construction going on in Bluffdale. That kind of cryptanalysis requires two major ingredients: super-fast computers to conduct brute-force attacks on encrypted messages and a massive number of those messages for the computers to analyze. The more messages from a given target, the more likely it is for the computers to detect telltale patterns, and Bluffdale will be able to hold a great many messages. "We questioned it one time," says another source, a senior intelligence manager who was also involved with the planning. "Why were we building this NSA facility? And, boy, they rolled out all the old guys—the crypto guys." According to the official, these experts told then-director of national intelligence Dennis Blair, "You’ve got to build this thing because we just don’t have the capability of doing the code-breaking." It was a candid admission.'"

187 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. All your secrets belong to us... by Grog6 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Panopticon this week; Maybe we'll get Skynet by accident?

    That might be best for everyone in the long run...

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by kaws · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't mind Skynet much if it developed into a sort of protector of good.

    2. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by beckett · · Score: 1

      and i wouldn't mind guns if people just used them to change tv channels.

    3. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by rot26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that's always the problem, innit? I personally wouldn't mind the NSA reading all of my email if it were, in fact, a sort of protector of good. How can any politician EVER control a beast that knows where every skeleton in every closet is and can protect that information behind armed guards and blast-proof doors? It's a deal with the devil if there ever has been one.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    4. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The big thing I'm wondering about here is: where are they going to find people to run this place? Every week it seems, there's a new article about industry and the government both complaining there aren't enough STEM workers. It's kinda hard for a country to run a super high-tech surveillance center without well-educated STEM workers to do those jobs, and government jobs traditionally don't pay that well to compete with the private-sector jobs that are out there, plus the geeks seem to hate this kind of thing and many will probably refuse to work there out of principle.

    5. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by anubi · · Score: 1

      We will get H1-B's from China.

      Heck, I just ordered some really cool 18650 lithium-ion battery chargers from China, and was amazed at the performance they had. I saw other reviews showing the design elegance of the PCB in them, so naturally I had to look up the chips to see how I could use their clever designs in some of my stuff.

      I found the datasheets all right - and they are all in Chinese!

      Don't worry about the pay - the government can print up anything they want. The one thing the government has to concern with is training their managers - which appear to be people some top mucky-muck is indebted to and rewarded with a "good job" in the aerospace industry. Those people have got to learn to tolerate productivity in the workplace, not just set directives and micromanage. I have never seen anything run as badly as government-funded institutions.

      As we outsource more and more stuff, we become more and more dependent on those serving us. If they decide to stop sourcing a critical part, - or worse - decide its in their interest to supply a part which is "bugged" so it can be told to self-destruct ( much like some of today's software will do ) via an undocumented instruction sequence, they can insure world peace by making sure weapons using these devices fail before they do their deed.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    6. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      T1000's think Skynet is good. Does that count?

    7. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      It's a really interesting topic of discussion. During WWII, we broke all sorts of codes, primarily by building bigger and more expensive computers than any rational scientist from the other side believed we would be willing to build. The two secrets the NSA has to keep to be effective (assuming it is, but that's a different topic) is 1) just how big their computers are, and 2) knowledge of any codes they've broken. In WWII, we let good people die who we could have saved, simply to protect the secret that we had broken their codes. If every time the other side sent an encrypted message about where and when to attack, we just magically happened to be in the right place at the right time, they'd catch on. If the NSA can break AES, then they're in the same situation today. For example, they may be letting good people die who could be saved if the NSA simply informed the local police of an encrypted message from some bad guy.

      So, today most of us rational computer geeks don't believe the NSA can break our codes. We have more public discussion now than was ever possible before, and the brain power on the internet world-wide thinking about code breaking probably dwarfs the NSA. Breaking AES by brute force would take a computer of nearly unthinkable size... sort of like in WWII. Breaking RSA with long keys like most of use use would probably take a quantum computer many years ahead of anything we know of...

      Actually, I know a guy who knows one of the guys that RSA is named after, and he tells me that guy broke RSA in the '90s... The funny thing is my story is true! Of course, I can't verify the story the guy told me.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    8. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by Xacid · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation

      "Shortly after its release, PGP encryption found its way outside the United States, and in February 1993 Zimmermann became the formal target of a criminal investigation by the US Government for "munitions export without a license". Cryptosystems using keys larger than 40 bits were then considered munitions within the definition of the US export regulations; PGP has never used keys smaller than 128 bits so it qualified at that time. Penalties for violation, if found guilty, were substantial. After several years, the investigation of Zimmermann was closed without filing criminal charges against him or anyone else."

      There always seems to be some mysterious upper threshold for most encryption schemes...Wonder why...

    9. Re:All your secrets belong to us... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Clancy! Use the remote!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. USA...we miss you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In american America, people monitor the government.
    In soviet America, the government monitors the people.

    1. Re:USA...we miss you! by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      In american America, people monitor the government.
      In soviet America, the government monitors the people.

      Just an observation and being an election year, is that when this type of stuff went on before it was always Bush's "plan", yet not one word against Obama to do anything about it. Not surprising, but interesting.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    2. Re:USA...we miss you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shhh... Don't mention 'carnivore'

    3. Re:USA...we miss you! by TehZorroness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, here's a word from me at least. Obama can eat a dick. I'm getting so fed up with this gradual transition to full autonomous surveillance. There will be people out in the streets about this when things start getting bad. Soon enough, the schism between reality and the fairy tales they told us about freedom in public school will be too wide even for the American Idol crowd to believe. An interesting time to live. It's just too bad we can't be investing these man-years and resources on attaining sustainability before the Earth becomes a giant radioactive ball of toxic shit inhabited by cannibalistic asshats.

    4. Re:USA...we miss you! by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's ok. As long we get to keep our birth control and our gay rights, democracy is safe, right?

    5. Re:USA...we miss you! by Aryden · · Score: 1

      Honestly, thinking intellectually about the growth and capabilities of technologies, I see things like this as an inevitability no matter who is in power. Now, that is not to say that it is right and that we should not fight it, but pointing the finger at the guy in the oval is a little bit on the "just want someone to blame" side of things. I do not personally believe that anyone elected into that position in the last 2 decades would be stomping down on things like this.

    6. Re:USA...we miss you! by forkfail · · Score: 2

      Ah - I love the smell of optimism in the morning!

      (Or afternoon, as it happens, but it doesn't quite have the same impact...)

      --
      Check your premises.
    7. Re:USA...we miss you! by jmcvetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There will be people out in the streets about this when things start getting bad.

      Yes, but the drones will take care of them.

  3. a thought by zlives · · Score: 2

    First, I already assumed they were doing this. second, i don't know so just a thought. could you create an encryption method that generates a new encryption key for every new message.

    1. Re:a thought by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, you could, but it would be useless. You would then have to transmit the new key to your recipient for every message. If they can intercept the message, they would get your keys also.

      Anyway AES is public key encryption. I think you meant passphrase, not key. In any case, the same problem applies.

      What you are getting at is called a one-time-use pad. It is pretty much the most secure form of protection, but also very unwieldy for Joe Everyman.

      -d

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:a thought by klapaucjusz · · Score: 2

      could you create an encryption method that generates a new encryption key for every new message.

      Yes, modern cryptosystems do that. It's called an Initialisation Vector.

    3. Re:a thought by adturner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's basically what happens today with most protocols like SSL/TLS. For each new connection, the client and server negotiate a new key via public key crypto like RSA. Actually, based on some comments in the article, like needing more "transactions" to help break the encryption, makes me believe the NSA is actually working to break RSA then AES.

    4. Re:a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Anyway AES is public key encryption"

      O'rly.

    5. Re:a thought by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      second, i don't know so just a thought. could you create an encryption method that generates a new encryption key for every new message.

      Sure, but you have to be more specific. A one time pad might meet your definition, as might standard hybrid public/private encryption (which is widely used).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, AES isn't public key, it's just usually used in conjunction with public key. The public key portion of the exchange is used to communicate an AES key (the "shared secret") which is then used for communication moving forward. This is because public key encryption is "expensive" by comparison to block cyphers like AES. Secondly, you don't communicate a passphrase with public key. The passphrase that you're used to using is so that keys can be securely stored and someone that gains access to your key file doesn't get access to your key.

      You could potentially communicate a new AES key with every message, which would greatly reduce the chances of a bruce force attack being successfully since most rely on the ability to analyze a large number of blocks that use the same key. That said, if you crack one key you do gain access to every key that followed in the chain.

    7. Re:a thought by zill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyway AES is public key encryption.

      AES is a symmetric-key algorithm.

    8. Re:a thought by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      You have to share the initialization vector in the same way you have to share the session key.

      Breaking either of these boils down to the same problem: breaking the asymmetric (e.g. RSA) keys.

      This problem is doable for commonly-used 1024 bit RSA keys with absolutely massive amounts (the sort of thing a rich government may be able to come up with now) of CPU power; but not doable in the medium or long term for 2048 bit or greater keys, Of course, practical quantum computing will change this equation.

    9. Re:a thought by mlts · · Score: 1

      PGP does this, as every message/file sent has its own symmetric encryption key, with only the key material encrypted with RSA/DSS.

      However, if the public/private key gets broken, all bets are off.

    10. Re:a thought by wren337 · · Score: 2

      You're assuming that you're chaining the new AES key into the preceding message. Better to increase the frequency of the PKI handshake and periodically exchange new, clean AES keys.

      As for the parent's question about a new key for each message - you could exchange one-time keypads securely and then use a new keypad with each message. Bulky, but guaranteed to be as secure as your exchange and storage mechanisms.

    11. Re:a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Regarding IV: Parent is right, GP is mistaken.

      The initialization vector does not change the key in any way. It is typically transmitted in the clear as the first part of the packet. Its only purpose is to provide a starting point for a "Mode of Operation" which adds variation to the plaintext in case that some blocks contain repetitive data (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation ).

      If you want to have key variation you need to derive session keys from a master key by way of a one-way function (e.g. based on a secure hash like SHA256 or better), with some hints for your peer on how to derive it from the shared master key.

      Regarding Quantum Computing:
      Current QC have been shown to factor 4 bit numbers (15 -> 5 x 3), but not much more than that. The problem is to generate enough many entangled and coherent qubits (the QC working variable, if you will) that is large enough to hold the input data, i.e. the RSA modulus you want to factor. Researchers are facing enormous problems to even create a usable 8-qubit entanglement for long enough to run the computation, because the physical implementations of qubits are not stable enough and become decoherent quickly. Quantum Error Correction is used to make do with current implementations, but it doesn't scale.

      IBM recently seems to have achieved a breakthrough in coherency, bringing it up to 100 microseconds, so we will have to see if that makes a difference in building large enough arrays of coherent and entangled qubits. But to achieve 2048 qubit arrays it seems there's a fair bit of more research necessary.

    12. Re:a thought by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That's done for a completely different reason. With SSL you don't have a pre-agreed key so you have to create one for that session.

      If you know the other person and have agreed on a key then it's not necessary.

      Breaking AES may be impossible. That was the design goal at least.

      Not that DES was never 'broken' it's just that brute-force searching of 56 bit keys became possible. With a 128-bit key that's not going to happen.

      (nb. I prefer 128-bit AES to the 192-bit and 256-bit variants. I just don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about their key schedules, if you want to guard against attacks on the algorithm you should probably add more rounds to 128-bit AES rather than fiddling with the key).

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:a thought by CBravo · · Score: 2

      You don't build such a large datacenter without a good hint that it will work (out). It means they are on to something. The first question is what exactly are they after: Private keys from SSL certificates, private key of root certificate from certificate authoroties, personal private keys, ... Then the question remains: How do you keep your secret key a secret?

      --
      nosig today
    14. Re:a thought by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      If the AES keys used to encrypt the messages are routinely changed, the target will be to go after the symmetric cipher key used to encrypt to the private key.

      The encryption key used to protect the private key is the weak link - assuming the private key can be acquired. If it can not be acquired, the public key will need to be factored and the private key generated from the factors. If the symmetric key were ever passed and stored in an encrypted form, it can then be decrypted at that point and the encrypted message can be decrypted and read.

    15. Re:a thought by forkfail · · Score: 1

      The fact that you and many others assume such is their carte blanche to surveil to their hearts content and then some.

      --
      Check your premises.
    16. Re:a thought by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Diffie Hellman key exchange.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    17. Re:a thought by epine · · Score: 1

      If your encryption algorithm is secure then it's secure.

      Your tautology would be more interesting if we had a single provable cipher. The best we manage is mapping a cipher contraption onto some other mathematical problem (such as factoring) which has been probed over centuries by the most brilliant minds. Yet even the hardness of factoring remains unproven so far as I've heard.

      Also, since the vast majority of applications leak the session key in a public key exchange, there's an awful lot riding on the security of the public key exchange. Your public key is only as good as your randomness source. Have you audited your random number source lately? This is the kind of thing that's very hard to control with a test suite. If your randomness comes from a compromised black box (e.g. a built-in CPU randomness circuit involving NSA directives) the non-randomness of your random numbers could even be made crypto strong (only if you know the secret key can you discover the bits aren't really random).

      There's so many screwdrivers crammed into the doorframe, proof couldn't squeeze in edgewise.

    18. Re:a thought by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      One solution may be to use multiple layers of AES. Rather than double or tripling anonymity it shoulod increase it exponentially, as long as one AES layer is placed directly in the other. The reason is if you include an AES layer in some sort of wrapper like an header that is predictable, if the analysis breaks through the first layer, they look for predictable data to indicate that, such as ASCII data or TCP headers or what not. So you dont want to give them that, if they "break through the first layer", and all they get is more random data, they will have no way of knowing if they actually have broken through, right?

    19. Re:a thought by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I don't think the OP was referring to public keys and session key exchanges (where a different key every time isn't optional, it's part of the process).

      --
      No sig today...
  4. Brute force.... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ...seems appropriate as a term for how the US government takes its stance towards the rest of the world. Even although broke. How long, yet ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Brute force.... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      ...seems appropriate as a term for how the US government takes its stance towards the rest of the world. Even although broke. How long, yet ?

      We're not broke, just bleeding.

      All the hand-wringing is because certain politicians are upset that we're not spending all of it on the haves.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Brute force.... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1, Informative

      All the hand-wringing is because certain politicians are upset that we're not stealing all of it from the haves.

      FTFY

    3. Re:Brute force.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the hand-wringing is because certain politicians are upset that we're not fooling enough people into thinking we're stealing all of it from the haves.

      FTFY

    4. Re:Brute force.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL, what party in the US is not pro big corporations? They're both rabidly big banking, both pro big pharma/medical, both pro agriculture, etc. etc.

  5. Deficit by ehiris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought we were bankrupt. Don't we have better things to spend (or save) our money on?

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

      Debt and on-going budget deficits are not the same as "bankrupt" for the US government. It's not great though.

      Though NSA is under DoD, who has been pulling down something like a trillion dollars a year to play with. A couple wars will do wonders for your budget.

      So a few million for a data center is like worrying about new shoelaces when you're behind on two mortgages.

    2. Re:Deficit by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

      You've got to make your spy centre impressive from the air (see also the Pentagon & Langley). How are low-budget TV spy shows supposed to insert a generic speeded-up aerial pan of that?

      Not to mention that it's not going to be as cool-looking as the doughnut:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters

    3. Re:Deficit by Teckla · · Score: 1

      I thought we were bankrupt. Don't we have better things to spend (or save) our money on?

      The U.S. won't go bankrupt, not as long as what is owed is U.S. dollars.

      The U.S. can continue to inflate its currency, however (i.e., make each dollar worth less, by adding more dollars to the pool of dollars). This upsets "the 1%" a great deal, since they own almost everything. Somewhat impacted are "the 99%", but not nearly so much as your average person on the street might think.

      Inflation really isn't so bad, because it makes U.S. exports more attractive (they effectively cost less), and all those people deep in credit card and mortgage debt effectively end up owing less money.

    4. Re:Deficit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The 1% don't care that much about inflation; you say they own "almost everything", but the thing is, if what you own is real, its value doesn't generally go down. So, if you own a bunch of valuable real estate, inflation isn't going to hit you because its value in an inflating currency will rise (real estate bubbles notwithstanding). For liquid assets, if your money is in stocks, those go up to account for inflation too (assuming the companies aren't doing badly).

      Finally, the 1% probably doesn't keep their cash all in US dollars, but instead spread it out over lots of currencies, including the Swiss Franc.

    5. Re:Deficit by Teckla · · Score: 1

      The 1% don't care that much about inflation; you say they own "almost everything", but the thing is, if what you own is real, its value doesn't generally go down.

      That's a really good point, and something us 99%'ers should probably consider when saving / investing!

      Thank you for the rest of your interesting comment, too.

    6. Re:Deficit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's not without risk obviously, though; just look all the people who tried to emulate the 1% recently by buying rental properties, only to have the whole thing blow up in their faces. The 1% probably buy a lot of properties that regular folks can't afford: big commercial properties, properties in Manhattan, properties on Maui, etc., most of which probably didn't suffer the same fate, or at least to the same extent, that millions upon millions of suburban residential houses did in the realty collapse.

    7. Re:Deficit by Archtech · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting - and seriously worrying - is that Grishnakh's point about the super-rich not caring about inflation would come as a surprise to any Slashdotter. Isn't it fairly obvious?

      Imagine you are an intelligent, ruthless, selfish person who has, by focused effort and an utter lack of empathy, amassed a huge fortune. What is your top priority? No, not partying with starlets - making sure you keep and expand your huge fortune. One of the very first things you do is hire a bunch of even more intelligent, highly qualified economists and accountants. They will tell you - although no businessperson needs to be told - about inflation and its effects (and its purposes). Of course you are not going to get caught by it to your detriment: inflation is one of a number of relatively unobtrusive, relentless mechanisms that quietly transfer vast sums of money from the poor and moderately well off to the rich.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    8. Re:Deficit by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Mod up pls. Not all real estate is valuable in view of joining the "1%".

  6. How many bits? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    How many bits should we use for encryption now?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:How many bits? by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many bits should we use for encryption now?

      More.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    2. Re:How many bits? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many bits should we use for encryption now?

      If you assume peak computing power is doubling ever n years, they you need one more bit every n years to keep ahead.

      And of course, whatever you use now will be breakable in the future, if anyone cares to save your messages until computing catches up.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:How many bits? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      As many as you can. I get the feeling from TFA that they can at least crack AES-128.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:How many bits? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      Use no encryption and have a sig like mine. Eventually someone gets bored of reading every mundane post and email and puts you on an "ignore" filter.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:How many bits? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think at this point it isn't about the number of bits, it's about luck, implimentation issues and the search for user error. Doesn't matter how many bits you use if they can sneak a copy of your laptop hard drive and find the key somewhere in swap space, or if your 8192-bit key is derived from a passphrase that's only ten alphanumeric characters, or if they can pull off an effective MITM attack on an SSL by threatening/bribing/asking a trusted certification authority to sign their cert.

    6. Re:How many bits? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      At most you need one (symmetric) key bit for every bit in every message you plan to send using that key. That effectively turns it into a one-time pad, which cannot be broken through brute force—there is a valid key for every possible cleartext of that length. (Be sure to pad the message!)

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:How many bits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's more than that if you believe the GPU people - something like 10x. Cracking a password using rainbow tables and megabytes of memory is one way of doing it. Just precalculate every possible combination of plain text and encrypted text.

    8. Re:How many bits? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and even better: send false positives to waste their time.

      perhaps the crypto protocols need enhancing to allow fake bullshit messages that can't easily be told from real crypto stuff.

      ie, DOS them.

      I know, they have lots of power but it IS a war. war on our privacy and its so blatant now, they don't even try to hide their break-in attempts to us, anymore.

      the ONLY reason encryption was allowed in the first place was for banking and online 'business'. if there was not this use-case, we would be disallowed encryption entirely.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:How many bits? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't about how many bits you used, there would be no use for the giant cluster they are building.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:How many bits? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      While those are legitimate attack vectors, they do not seem to be what this facility will perform. If it's purely a passive listener of all internet & phone communication, looking for "patterns" and "threats" from the entire haystack, then using stronger encryption would seem to be sensible.

    11. Re:How many bits? by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Funny

      How many bits should we use for encryption now?

      All of them.

    12. Re:How many bits? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      And of course, whatever you use now will be breakable in the future, if anyone cares to save your messages until computing catches up.

      Which is the whole point of this new facility according to TFA.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:How many bits? by mlts · · Score: 1

      I'd not worry about bits as much as the algorithm and the block size.

      Ideally, one would cascade three solid encryption algorithms, be it AES, Serpent, and Twofish. Not so one can say they have a 768 bit key [1], but if one of the algorithms has a weakness that reduces its strength, the data is still protected. This is why I wish programs which signed documents would not just use RSA or DSS, but that, as well as a ECC key, as well as using a public/private key system that isn't vulnerable to Shor's Algorithm (and thus isn't crackable via quantum computing.)

      [1]: In reality, you only gain 3x the security by using cascaded algorithms, 258 bits at most total.

    14. Re:How many bits? by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's no way they can crack AES-128 unless there's a hole in the algorithm or they have quantum computing.

      Current best practices are:

      1) AES-128 to AES-256 for symmetric keys (although AES-256 has its own problems which can sometimes collapse it to AES-128 - these are ameloriated by increasing the key rounds)

      2) 2048-bit to 4092-bit for RSA keys (2048 may be breakable by 2030 with conventional computing, 4092-bit will take much longer).

      If quantum computing becomes feasible then AES keys will effectively halve in complexity (i.e. AES-128 goes to 64-bit, AES-256 goes to AES-128) and RSA and DSA keys will be useless.

    15. Re:How many bits? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget there are commercially available quantum computers already, it's safe to say the NSA is already somewhat ahead of that, and they're on the bleeding edge of cryptography research. I've already phased out AES-128 and RSA-2048 from my systems just because I can.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:How many bits? by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      If you believe they have QC, are you using any public key encryption?

    17. Re:How many bits? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Yeah but I'm still using the Gmail address I signed up to in the early days, so the NSA's code-breaking capability is the least of my problems right now.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:How many bits? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      In addition, I've begun prefacing every phone call I make with Echelon trigger words.

      They want dirt on us? Fine, let's BURY the motherfuckers in it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    19. Re:How many bits? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      A rainbow table for every 256-bit key, using one atom per key, will just about fit in the universe. A rainbow table using one atom for every 266-bit key using one atom per key will be bigger than the universe. Calculating it will probably take a long time, even if you do have a big enough hard disk...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:How many bits? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Encryption is totally irrelevant. They don't care what you say, they care who you are talking to. This sort of thing is defeated by systems like Tor (or would be, if enough people used it) and anonymous remailers, not by encryption.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:How many bits? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      How many bits should we use for encryption now?

      Symmetric or asymmetric encryption...?

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:How many bits? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If you assume peak computing power is doubling ever n years, they you need one more bit every n years to keep ahead.

      And of course, whatever you use now will be breakable in the future, if anyone cares to save your messages until computing catches up.

      Nope.

      At some point you have to take into account how much energy it would take to try all the keys. Even if you get it down to a few thousand electrons per key (unlikely) you'll still need to suck energy directly from the sun's core to break 128-bit AES in a reasonable time.

      2^128 is a BIG number.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:How many bits? by KaoticEvil · · Score: 1

      moar... fixed that for you ;)

      --
      You can close your eyes to reality but not to memories.
    24. Re:How many bits? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      At most you need one (symmetric) key bit for every bit in every message you plan to send using that key. That effectively turns it into a one-time pad, which cannot be broken through brute force—there is a valid key for every possible cleartext of that length. (Be sure to pad the message!)

      You can only send one message using that key. That's what makes it a one-time pad. The moment you have multiple messages encrypted with the same key, it's not provably unbreakable anymore, because you have a vector for attack (comparing multiple cypher-texts).

      It's all in the implementation. What I had in mind for the case of multiple messages is a key of (N + M) bits, and messages of (N + M) bits, where you use the first N bits of the key to encode the first message and the next M bits to encode the second message. This is trivially equivalent to two separate one-time pads where each message is encrypted with its own non-overlapping portion of the key. It's also the way one-time pads are traditionally used, since doing the hard part (key exchange) over again for every message doesn't really make sense. Instead, you exchange a very large key once and consume part of it to encode each message.

      However, yes, you could run into trouble if you start mixing the key bits and message bits up such that the two keys/ciphertexts aren't really independent.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    25. Re:How many bits? by CBravo · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would be 640kB

      --
      nosig today
    26. Re:How many bits? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 2

      If you believe that then I think you vastly underestimate how willing the US Government is to pay someone to spend months or years poring over the same BS until they find something interesting. They have entire departments devoted to it.

    27. Re:How many bits? by milkman479 · · Score: 1

      The IRS?

    28. Re:How many bits? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Two intercepted messages:

      ATTACK AT DAWN

      ATTACK AT DUSK

      Which message is the real one? First day of Crypto 101.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    29. Re:How many bits? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Again, if this is a passive listener looking for emerging threats, in a broad net, with no known "bad guy they're making links to", but "find me new bad guys", then the "who" is not part of the equation. Encryption would prevent an innocent, unconnected person from being labeled "suspicious" due to the content of their activities.

      No doubt they also have the ability to put "persons of interest" to flag connections and associations with, and that's where Tor will do you well.

    30. Re:How many bits? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      At most you need one (symmetric) key bit for every bit in every message you plan to send using that key. That effectively turns it into a one-time pad, which cannot be broken through brute force—there is a valid key for every possible cleartext of that length. (Be sure to pad the message!)

      Which cannot be GUARANTEED to be broken within a certain time through brute force, you mean. A poorly chosen key can be hit fairly early in the brute force algorithm, in much the same way that a password of 'aardvark' would be hit early in a dictionary attack.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    31. Re:How many bits? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      At most you need one (symmetric) key bit for every bit in every message you plan to send using that key. That effectively turns it into a one-time pad, which cannot be broken through brute force—there is a valid key for every possible cleartext of that length. (Be sure to pad the message!)

      Which cannot be GUARANTEED to be broken within a certain time through brute force, you mean.

      No, I meant exactly what I said. If you try to brute-force a one-time pad you end up with all possible cleartexts, and no idea which one of them was the actual message. Basically, a brute-force search is pointless because you have no idea what you're searching for—no way to recognize the correct key.

      The simplest way to implement a one-time pad digitally is a basic XOR operation. You have a private key K and a message M, both X bits long, and the ciphertext C = XOR(M, K). Decrypting is symmetric, M = XOR(C, K). Obviously both the sender and receiver need a copy of the private key; arranging for that is the hard part, and the reason one-time pads aren't more common.

      The thing is, for any other message M' (also X bits long) there is a key K' where M' = XOR(C, K'). So was the message "THEBODYISUNDERTHECHURCH" or "PRESIDENTNIXONWASFRAMED"? A brute-force search would give you both of these messages, and many others besides. Without prior knowledge of the real key, there's no way to be sure which was sent. In practice the message would be padded with random bits, so you can't even be sure of the length (though you do know it isn't longer than the ciphertext).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    32. Re:How many bits? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Note that this only guarantees protection against weaknesses in one of the algorithms. If in any way you're able to determine when you've cracked the first layer, layering encryption one inside another could add as little as a single bit of security.

    33. Re:How many bits? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      The IRS?

      Technically, yes, but only for the employees that have too much imagination for regular Intel work.

  7. Not sure about that by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    The more messages from a given target, the more likely it is for the computers to detect telltale patterns

    IIRC, that's not true, for a good encryptation system.

    For a *perfect* encryptation system, the messages would be indistinguishable from random patterns of bits.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Not sure about that by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      (it's "encryption", not "encryptation")

      Think of the timing between messages, and the length of messages; those can tell a lot about the communication even without decoding anything. I'm not sure any popular cryptosystem uses junk payloads to thwart that kind of analysis, because of the extra computational and bandwidth burden.

      It could also be the case that the NSA does have some weaknesses on popular algorithms, and that the "telltale patterns" fact does hold for bit analysis when the scales get really, really large.

  8. NSA history and modern crypto's impact upon it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The whole we-can't-break-codes-anymore story is told in

    http://www.amazon.com/Coded-Messages-Hoodwink-Congress-People/dp/0875868142/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331918025&sr=8-1

    Coded Messages: How the CIA and the NSA Hoodwink Congress and the People

    by Nelson McAvoy, former NSA person, who claims to have been at the early meetings from when the NSA was formed.

  9. A secret role by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    One of its secret roles? Code-breaking your private, personal information. Everybody's a target.

    Gee, if that is a secret, I promise not to tell anyone. Anyone joining me on that? Just hope that no one will read this article who doesn't already know, that would kind of spoil it.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Bluffdale?!??!?!?! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    How sure are you that they are actually breaking into anything there?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Re:Wow! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    First post, never got that before.

    You must be using the new FTL neutrino submission system.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys"??? by SwedishChef · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that sentence says more than they intended it to. Could it be that the skills of the NSA people are eroding just like the skills at CIA did? I knew that CIA was in trouble - tradecraft-wise - when a COS let an asset into their HQ and he blew half the station to kingdom come. No one would have done that in the old days. Maybe NSA is having the same problem.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  13. Intelligence pays for itself by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We use our signals intelligence capability to pass the trade secrets of foreign companies on to our own domestic companies; there is plenty of money to be made from being able to decrypt messages that the NSA intercepts.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're Chinese?

    2. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by Forbman · · Score: 1

      In this case, then, there's a market for the NSA to send trade secrets from company X in country Y to a different company in country W, too. Maybe that's how they're funding the whole operation...

    3. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by Relayman · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    4. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)#Controversy

      A reference, if not a citation.

      I'm guessing this is what he was referring to.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    5. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    6. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by Ghostworks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The cited section basically talks about widespread French spying on American companies, and then claiming it was all a big conspiracy to make the French look bad once it came to light.

      The fact remains that even if the U.S. government were willing to steal information and share it with American companies -- and this is pretty unlikely given that the U.S. doesn't have the sort of cozy, formal overlap of public and private sectors that France, China, or even Great Britain have -- most other countries haven't had anything we want. You have to go back to 1793 Pawtucket to find a good example of the U.S. gaining an edge through industrial espionage.

      Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government has shown it's willing to co-op private technology for its own ends. (For example, when it co-opted the patent for Phillip French's Crater Coupler and then used that state secrets privilege to get the dispute tossed out of court.) They just haven't been shown to help private U.S. firms with any of it, or to do it specifically to improve the competitive advantage of a U.S. company.

    7. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by digitig · · Score: 2

      and this is pretty unlikely given that the U.S. doesn't have the sort of cozy, formal overlap of public and private sectors that France, China, or even Great Britain have

      That would be why there's never been any suggestion at all of US commercial interests influencing foreign policy, then.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government has shown it's willing to co-op private technology for its own ends.

      Legally, the US government isn't bound by US patents (at least not in the normal sense of having to pay whatever is demanded or go without). Basically it's the intellectual property version of eminent domain.

    9. Re:Intelligence pays for itself by spook+brat · · Score: 2

      and this is pretty unlikely given that the U.S. doesn't have the sort of cozy, formal overlap of public and private sectors that France, China, or even Great Britain have

      That would be why there's never been any suggestion at all of US commercial interests influencing foreign policy, then.

      There's a difference between those two cases, which may seem small to you on a practical basis, but is significant from a policy standpoint.

      You correctly point out that companies like Halliburton actively lobby the legislature and executive branch to do things like lower taxes on the oil & gas industry or re-authorize the U.S. Export-Import bank. The company's political contributions can be interpreted as bribes, with consequent improper influence over U.S. policy. I agree that's at best questionable, and at worst just plain corrupt. You're probably also aware of problems like regulatory capture, or you wouldn't have made the comment you did.

      The French take this to a whole different level, though. Corporate security groups recognize the French National Intelligence services as active threats. In other words, Schlumberger (French competitor to Halliburton for global oilfield services) doesn't need to ask the French equivalent of the CIA to spy on Halliburton, the French spies do it proactively. The French government thinks it's their patriotic duty to help French companies get ahead on the global stage by committing national intelligence resources to corporate espionage. In the U.S.A. that sort of action by agents of the U.S. government on behalf of U.S. industry is illegal (even if the action took place off of U.S. soil).

      I don't know where you're from. You may feel that there's nothing wrong with French spies working to help their National industries. You may feel that corporate political contributions are a greater evil than corporate espionage on a national level. As an American, though, I feel that the possibility that individual politicians can be corrupted by corporate bribes is much easier to accept than a national policy of working directly for corporate interests. YMMV.

      --
      Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... ...and kill them - http://schlockmercenary.com
  14. What am I missing? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My understanding is that the best known general cryptanalytic attacks on AES are only marginally better than brute-force. Even AES-128 is essentially unbreakable under any known attacks then, since brute forcing a single AES-128 password is so far beyond feasibility, it's absurd. My understanding is that the best known attacks on AES are side-channel attacks, which require only modest computational resources, but need access to the encrypting machine, and related-key attacks that are only effective for certain small classes of keys.

    So we can then assume that NSA has a general attack on AES that makes it many, many orders of magnitude easier to break than the best known published attacks? Or is this more likely to be disinformation spread to make people *think* that AES is broken by NSA? My understanding was that NSA is generally somewhat but not extremely far beyond the academic state of the art these days.

    And there have been several reports of FBI and other federal agencies being unable to recover AES-256 encrypted hard drives. So if NSA has the capability to do so even for small numbers of keys using existing computing power, they obviously keep it incredibly restricted and under wraps.

    So... this is BS by somebody, right? Either congress is getting BSed into funding stuff that won't do what they're being told it will do, or the public is getting BSed into believing that using encryption is pointless because NSA can real-time decrypt anything, so just don't bother, mmm'kay?

    1. Re:What am I missing? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      My understanding is that the best known general cryptanalytic attacks on AES are only marginally better than brute-force

      ... known outside the NSA. If they have something that would break AES easily, they probably keep it safely classified.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:What am I missing? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      My understanding is that the best publicly known general cryptanalytic attacks on AES are only marginally better than brute-force

      That is what you are missing.

      So we can then assume that NSA has a general attack on AES that makes it many, many orders of magnitude easier to break than the best known published attacks? Or is this more likely to be disinformation spread to make people *think* that AES is broken by NSA? My understanding was that NSA is generally somewhat but not extremely far beyond the academic state of the art these days.

      How would we even know? The NSA will always have an advantage over public research: they have access to all the public research, as well as classified expertise.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:What am I missing? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Either congress is getting BSed into funding stuff that won't do what they're being told it will do

      "star wars". lasers and shooting bad guys down. hey, idiots in 'elected office' can understand simple things like that. here, take my money!

      same here: big supercomputers that cost money, staff to run it and fat budgets to keep it going. wet dreams, no? who would NOT want that? and its an easy sell. the world is filled with terr-a-wrists and we need lots and lots of big blinkinlight computers to keep us save.

      here, take my money. how much do you need?

      (puke)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:What am I missing? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      "keep us save".

      sigh. OT: I really do know the difference between 'safe' and 'save'. so why did I type 'save' on that post? I don't know,;but I'm not alone in this problem and I see lots of people type one thing when they were thinking another. its a real problem. brain rate != finger rate? lost sync in the clock and data streams? something like that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:What am I missing? by Dan1701 · · Score: 2

      Even if they do have such a tool, it is still effectively useless. By analogy, during World War 2 the allies had broken the German ENIGMA codes, yet had to work very hard to pretend that the code was still secure, to prevent the Germans copping wise to the fact that their codes were useless and devising something better. The same applies here: if the NSA have broken AES, then they cannot use this hack for anything save national security, and must also work hard to prevent the merest suspicion of the hack getting out.

      The best thing we could do would be to club together to fund a bounty for information on how to break AES without using brute-force computing, so that we'd know if it could not be trusted (we already know that no government can be trusted to act other than as a self-interested parasite).

    6. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "keep us save".

      sigh. OT: I really do know the difference between 'safe' and 'save'. so why did I type 'save' on that post? I don't know,;but I'm not alone in this problem and I see lots of people type one thing when they were thinking another. its a real problem. brain rate != finger rate? lost sync in the clock and data streams? something like that.

      Shoulda just dropped it - when I read it I thought you were doing perfect satire of the idiots who make these funding decisions.

    7. Re:What am I missing? by zill · · Score: 1

      The best thing we could do would be to club together to fund a bounty for information on how to break AES without using brute-force computing

      That's basically what academia has been trying to do before Rijndael even became AES. There are more than a dozen papers on AES attacks, the fastest of which is faster than brute-force by a factor of 4.

      It basically comes down to whether academia has more brains or NSA has more brains.

    8. Re:What am I missing? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it. "serve" -> "server" is even more common :-).

    9. Re:What am I missing? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      How would we even know? The NSA will always have an advantage over public research: they have access to all the public research, as well as classified expertise.

      Maybe. If you can't publish your findings, others can't error check them. Great for getting funding, not so great for actual work. In the final analysis, the KGB made up as much information as they gathered. Even when they did uncover the truth, they wouldn't bump it upstairs, instead telling their leaders what the leaders wanted to hear.
      During Gulf War I, General Swartzkopf (sp?) complained that the intelligence he was getting was useless, because it was facts followed by the analysis "X might happen, or X might not happen"

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    10. Re:What am I missing? by Doofus · · Score: 1

      It's filled with random bits. All the way down.

      --
      If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
    11. Re:What am I missing? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "During Gulf War I, General Swartzkopf (sp?) complained that the intelligence he was getting was useless, because it was facts followed by the analysis "X might happen, or X might not happen""

      Sounds like the intelligence sector was working as designed, they are supposed to give facts to policy makers and not try to make policy. Policy includes military strategy.

    12. Re:What am I missing? by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that encryption on top of encryption doesn't necessarily make cryptanalysis more difficult, your are forgetting that you MUST NEVER CROSS THE STREAMS. Why? It would be bad.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    13. Re:What am I missing? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So... this is BS by somebody, right? Either congress is getting BSed into funding stuff that won't do what they're being told it will do

      So this is going to be giant empty building with the money really going into reasearch on crashed alien spaceships at Area 51?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re:What am I missing? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the intelligence sector was working as designed, they are supposed to give facts to policy makers and not try to make policy. Policy includes military strategy.

      Not policy, analysis. I.e. Here is a photo of Sadam's Nth battalion. Ok, so you know where it is. What you really need to know is are they armed and ready, or exhausted and out of ammo.? Will they put up a fight, or are they on the edge of mutiny?

      Policy decides when to act. Before policy makers decide, they should have proper analysis telling them the likely consequences of their actions.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    15. Re:What am I missing? by LeDopore · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the best known general cryptanalytic attacks on AES are only marginally better than brute-force

      ... known outside the NSA. If they have something that would break AES easily, they probably keep it safely classified.

      And if they had a symmetric cypher which looked as good as AES to testers but had a secret back door only they could find, they'd do all they could to promote it as the standard. This *probably* isn't what happened; AES is still probably safe even from the NSA. Still, folks shouldn't trust that AES is absolutely airtight.

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
    16. Re:What am I missing? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Muscle memory. After a while typing trains your fingers so well that you can type common words faster and automatically without thinking. Unfortunately, you have no control over this process, so you'll end up typing words you type more often when you intend to type words you type less often.

      There's also the whole word-sound thing with language. Safe and save sound rather similar and as a bonus can mean similar things, and probably get stored in your brain in similar places. Even though you think the right word, your language comes out wrong when you go to translate concept-thoughts into action.

    17. Re:What am I missing? by isorox · · Score: 1

      "keep us save".

      sigh. OT: I really do know the difference between 'safe' and 'save'. so why did I type 'save' on that post? I don't know,;but I'm not alone in this problem and I see lots of people type one thing when they were thinking another. its a real problem. brain rate != finger rate? lost sync in the clock and data streams? something like that.

      If he'd have said "keep up :wq" would that have been better?

  15. encrypted message for the NSA by lemur3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    uckfay offway ationalnay ecuritysay agencyway

  16. Stranger than fiction? by gregthebunny · · Score: 1

    I think I've been watching too much Person of Interest.

  17. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Because codebreaking has been obsolete since 1978, as the NSA will find out the hard way.

  18. Does Anyone Have Lat/Long Numbers? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Just wondering if anyone has the exact latitude & longitude coordinates for this facility.

    Gonna need 'em for programming all the home-brew autonomous high-explosive and incendiary-carrying kamikaze drones needed to take this facility out.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Does Anyone Have Lat/Long Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About 40.449756,-111.942959.
      I can see the construction from my office.
      It's gonna be BIG

      (Ironic captcha: paranoid)

    2. Re:Does Anyone Have Lat/Long Numbers? by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      I know that you're probably trying to be funny, but in this case discretion may be a better idea.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    3. Re:Does Anyone Have Lat/Long Numbers? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Strange, I just got a new email from Amazon Web Services and how they've got some new service offerings coming on line soon for the Virginia area...Hmm...

  19. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WHO would work for them, I ask you?

    decades ago, the people didn't view their government quite the way they do today. some patriotism did exist and people wanted to help their government. *generally*.

    today we all see how invasive and evil our government has become. totally 100% lost its way. almost anything it does, it does badly and hurts people, long and short run.

    if I was offered a job for the so-called white hats (which I now see as black hats) I'd turn it down. I would not be able to live with myself knowing I'm helping an evil force become more evil and more forceful.

    I do realize a lot of people can easily shelve their ethics and see money-making jobs as separate. but I wonder how many people still believe that if they join the government or gov-sponsored jobs, that they are really HELPING things?

    too many black marks on the government. working for them could be as bad as working for the old mafias. the people that they do get, I would not trust. they are whores.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  20. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by zill · · Score: 1

    when a COS let an asset into their HQ and he blew half the station to kingdom come.

    In case anyone else didn't get the reference.

  21. One Time DVD or SD anyone? by Gim+Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The one time pad could make a comeback in the form of a one time DVD's or maybe even SD or Micro SD chips. I know, it is not scalable due to the problem of distribution. It is also symmetric in that the same "key" encrypts and decrypts, but it is also immune to brute force since your one time key is equal to or longer than the message length. An interesting variation might be to use an image file that is very long, but completely innocent as a pseudo random key and only have two copies of that exact image. The former Soviet Union used a one time cypher for all of their clandestine agent communications.

    1. Re:One Time DVD or SD anyone? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everyone used one time pad for all of their clandestine agent communications. OTP, it's the only way to be sure.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_stations

      Using an image has problems in that they are not random, so are subject to analysis. If you stripped the headers, and used an "image" of captured static, it might be good enough, but almost anything organic like a photo of a tree, will have patterns in it.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:One Time DVD or SD anyone? by wren337 · · Score: 1

      This. Your OTP can't have any pattern to it. You'd have to remove the entropy first, maybe by applying tight lossless compression and then XOR'ing a set of images together.

    3. Re:One Time DVD or SD anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no need for that, take a galois LFRPRNG (a pseudo random number generator with a period of (2^n) -1), share the init vector and the polynomial expression in person with your mates, use that stream as an OTP. If it is good enough for the military it is good enought for us !

    4. Re:One Time DVD or SD anyone? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      no need for that, take a galois LFRPRNG [wikipedia.org] (a pseudo random number generator with a period of (2^n) -1), share the init vector and the polynomial expression in person with your mates, use that stream as an OTP. If it is good enough for the military it is good enought for us !

      Bah!

      Just stick the leads to the RNG in a nice, piping-hot cup of tea and let the Brownian motion take care of the rest! [warning: HHGTTG reference]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  22. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by alen · · Score: 1

    same thing, different tech

    you collect data, look for patterns and break the code

    if someone is spying to blow up a building then they will do it for months and report back. the code they use for the target will probably never change and you just have to look for similar patterns

  23. Who's going to work there? by jfengel · · Score: 2

    The NSA is located in Maryland. At the end of the shift, traffic is bad enough between there and Columbia to block up the Interstates. That includes not just the cryptoanalysts, but the vast support staff: IT, cafeteria workers, security, human resources, etc etc etc.

    Who's in Bluffdale? Where is all that support staff going to come from, and what are they going to do with the rest of their lives? Although the NSA is on a military base, a lot of the work is done by civilians, and you can't just order them into the middle of nowhere the way you can with soldiers.

    1. Re:Who's going to work there? by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      You don't need to actually be at a data center to take advantage of the computational power.

    2. Re:Who's going to work there? by decsnake · · Score: 2

      who's going to be in bluffdale? almost nobody. Security, facility maintenance, remote hands and thats about it. The rest of the folks will be in your way on Rt 32 on their way home from work. Srsly, they are building office buildings where the Ft. Meade golf course used to be. Who do you think is going to be working in those?

    3. Re:Who's going to work there? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of space for just computers. But then, it's a big thing they're trying to do.

    4. Re:Who's going to work there? by trolman · · Score: 2

      The primary problem in Maryland is power. There is not enough generation/transmission available. So the big data centers are being built where free cooling and cheap power can be found.

    5. Re:Who's going to work there? by PerfectionLost · · Score: 2

      Yea my impression was, "We need a lot of space for computers to brute force break your encryption, and a million square feet gives us room to expand."

    6. Re:Who's going to work there? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Relax the dress code so that people can commute on sportbikes :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:Who's going to work there? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Salt lake city was selected for a very good reason. The people are loyal, pro USA and want good jobs. Their families can be traced back generations and can be interviewed - that is most important.
      They do not want new Americans, "dual" citizens with dreams of distant issues, people with no real pasts.
      The other issue is power supply, cooling, room to expand and optical loops in the heart of the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. Let the paranoid run loose! by Relayman · · Score: 2

    Code-breaking your private, personal information. Everybody's a target.

    To target everyone would be a total waste of resources. I would spend as much money figuring out who to target as I would decrypting anything send by that target.

    It's like saying, "We're going to mine the whole state of California to find the gold there."

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    1. Re:Let the paranoid run loose! by bobbutts · · Score: 1

      Except that in the case of packets, they can be captured and sent along without any disruption to the parties exchanging them. So it's more like being able to discover all the gold by forcing everyone to participate in gold detection (to their detriment) before sending out the mining crew.

    2. Re:Let the paranoid run loose! by Relayman · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Let's say you put the packets into a database as a conversation (A conversation could be a person signing on to his/her bank and checking his/her accounts). You still need to decide which conversations to process further. One indicator could be who you're having conversations with. On the other hand, you could work at storing the conversation in case it turns up later that you do want to process it further.

      My point stands: The algorithms for deciding what to decrypt are as important as the decryption itself.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:Let the paranoid run loose! by deapbluesea · · Score: 2

      To target everyone would be a total waste of resources

      Not to mention unconstitutional and illegal Oh wait, Obama's continuing the Bush policy? Never mind. Totally different then.

      --
      Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
    4. Re:Let the paranoid run loose! by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Code-breaking your private, personal information. Everybody's a target.

      To target everyone would be a total waste of resources. I would spend as much money figuring out who to target as I would decrypting anything send by that target. It's like saying, "We're going to mine the whole state of California to find the gold there."

      But sampling a few people makes sense for the same reason. With a big enough infrastructure, 1,000,000 people is a reasonable sample, even if only 1,000 get full on 100% communications scrutiny. They have to have a baseline, what does a "normal" person look like, which they can then compare to known bad actors. Then they figure out the minimum amount of data they need to filters the bad guys from the norms. If that minimum amount times the population of the US is less than their resources, they could and will sample everyone.

      Every time the NSA has been caught, they say "Ok, we won't do that again". (Where "That" means getting caught)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    5. Re:Let the paranoid run loose! by Relayman · · Score: 1

      You and I are on the same page here although I'm not sure the NSA is under the same restrictions on spying on U.S. citizens that the CIA supposedly is.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  25. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by El+Torico · · Score: 1

    WHO would work for them, I ask you?

    Someone who likes lots of money.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  26. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by PerfectionLost · · Score: 2

    Mostly mathematicians. Where I went to college, after finishing undergrad you either went on to grad school, or you went and worked for the NSA. One of my friends who went to grad school to study abstract mathematics (as well as some encryption) said you could always tell the NSA people from the academics because they had no name tags on.

  27. Queue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    smoke and mirrors. The public hears "we need this for cryptoanalysis, brute force code breaking of AES, insert whatever you want the public to know. The reality of it will never be told to the public. This is the NSA people, smoke and mirrors to cover what the are really doing.

  28. "We" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You may want to reconsider your use of "we". If you don't benefit from this latest expansion of government (which you've implied), and you didn't take part in the decision-making process (which you've also implied), then logically, you are not part of the "we".

  29. 1984? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Yep.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  30. A tribute by careysb · · Score: 2

    A tribute to "Person of Interest". The Machine.

  31. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if that sentence says more than they intended it to. Could it be that the skills of the NSA people are eroding just like the skills at CIA did? I knew that CIA was in trouble - tradecraft-wise - when a COS let an asset into their HQ and he blew half the station to kingdom come. No one would have done that in the old days. Maybe NSA is having the same problem.

    Crypto-guys are the "old guys" from a tradecraft point of view. AFAIK, in the NSA, many of the old-guys are involved with developing clever new internal ciphers (so-called classified "suite-A" algorithms). Since many of the "bad-guys" aren't nation states with heavy duty crypto development capablities, they often are using off the shelf stuff like AES/ECDSA (members of the "suite-B" algorithms). Until someone discovers a huge gaping hole backdoor, breaking these "suite-B" algorithms benefit from mostly from brute force (even if you know a few clever tricks that others do not which chops things down an order of magnitude or two). This is pretty much an admission that there is no huge gaping back door in these suite-B algorithms, not that any crypto-tradecraft capability was in trouble.

    I find it oddly somewhat comforting that the we have "old-guys" that realize that sometimes the best thing to do is to throw this problem at a box of computers and spend their time on other pursuits. Who knows, this facility might be dedicated to cranking on some clever cracking algorithm that is unknown to the public, all we know it it takes lots of OPS. Isn't surpising to me that cracking these algorithms are hard. As a historical data point, DES was apparently hard for even the NSA to crack so they deliberatly limited the DES key size from the original 64-bits, to the final 56-bit (although the NSA apparently lobbied for a mere 48-bits).

  32. Wow imagine that. by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Ask a bunch of people whether they need more resources and they got back a "yes! we can't do your job with what we have".

  33. Only 1 million square feet? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    For comparison, The Pentagon is 6.5 million square feet. Maybe I'm just jaded, but is the CIA more efficient, or is this building grossly undersized for the task it's designed for? Looking ahead 50 years, it would seem that the CIA's importance is going to dwarf the military's as we continue the long slow slide in to a permanent cold war with the rest of the world.
     
    I am glad, however, that they're moving some of these larger installations off the east coast. Too many major federal buildings are located within 100 miles of the capitol building.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Only 1 million square feet? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm wrapping my head around the statement, "going on in Bluffdale." I'm beginning to see an "Gub-ern-ment Entitlement" here...

      "STOP BLUFFING DALE!" you bullies...

    2. Re:Only 1 million square feet? by Archtech · · Score: 1

      The Pentagon is crammed with thousands of big, slow, inefficient human beings. As I read TFA, this new place is largely devoted to densely-packed electronic equipment.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  34. It's unlikely the real target is breaking codes by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I actually doubt that they are most interested in brute-force codebreaking through the front door except in a few rare situations.

    Most of the time, it's massive traffic analysis: searching and analyzing a titanic, dynamically changing graph, nodes are IP addresses and phone numbers of the planet.

    Once they find a 'target of interest', then they would usually ask the FBI or other authority just to put a tap on a specific line, or if necessary break in and install a trojan on the target's phone or computer, avoiding front-door code-bashing, which isn't generally feasible in large scale any more.

    There are companies (e.g. http://www.conveycomputer.com/) which make highly parallel co-processors from FPGA's which give user-definable vectorized instructions on enormous memory bandwidth.

    This is just the thing for the NSA.

  35. Where did I read this? by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Ahhh. This was from version 1.0 and no longer applies.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Where did I read this? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Ahhh. This was from version 1.0 and no longer applies.

      No persons, houses, papers or effects were harmed in the acquisition of certain electron charge distributions. Why worry, be happy!

  36. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by happy_place · · Score: 1

    unless you're a private contractor, you're not going to make a lot of money off the government. the oversight is too steep. government is expensive, not because it pays out huge secret bonuses to individuals, but because it pays out average wages to hordes of pencil-pushing regulators who watch each other and make sure no one is breaking the rules, which are in a constant state of flux.

    --
    http://www.beanleafpress.com
  37. Reminds me of the old days on the USENET by m.dillon · · Score: 1

    There was a list of keywords the CIA was known to filter on, so we'd often just insert them randomly into postings so they'd get read by some poor overworked CIA analyst.

    This should be fun!

    -Matt

  38. Who cares? No need for codebreakers anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The NSA is basically admitting that since they declassified that Nash algorithm,

    http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2012/nash_exhibit.shtml

    unbreakable encryption will be the rule, not the exception..

    Companies everywhere are already looking to commercialize this kind of technology so the NSA stuff just wasn't competitive anymore.

    http://www.tag.md/public/ca_nash.png

  39. Where's the interest? by RogueLeaderX · · Score: 1

    I find the lack of comments on this story disturbing.

    Are Americans so jaded that we can't be bothered to comment on a story about an internal spy agency increasing their capacity to snoop on us?

    I for one am outraged that my tax dollars are wasted on things like this. I'm sick of the governmental alphabet soup eroding our rights.

    Please, join me in voting 3rd party. Boycott Republicrats. Talk your friends into boycotting Republicrats. Talk them into voting if you have to. (Statistically speaking likely.)

  40. We're living Animal Farm... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Where some Animals are more equal than other animals.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:We're living Animal Farm... by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      Snowball! Goldstein! Bin Laden! Assange!

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
  41. Department of Energy by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    Last November a bipartisan group of 24 senators sent a letter to President Obama urging him to approve continued funding through 2013 for the Department of Energy’s exascale computing initiative

    Can't believe a candidate for the GOP nomination ran on a promise to terminate the department of energy...Do these guys even know what the DoE does?

  42. Re:Works Either Way by mlts · · Score: 1

    Depends. The nice thing about the OpenPGP protocol is that one can specify different algorithms. If I wanted DSS and Triple-DES, that is doable. However, RSA and AES are the most common used.

  43. Power use. by stacybro · · Score: 1

    One of the interesting things that came out when this first was announced here in Utah was that this one facility would use about 65 MW of power. 40-50 thousand homes worth of power. That's as much power as all of Salt Lake City. That's a freakin lot of power for a "bunch of servers". ( and the AC to cool them. )

  44. Hard fact of the matter... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    There is no computer that can break all code, not even a quantum computer.

    Here is why: Abstract language is only meaningful to those who agree upon the meanings attached to the words and phrases use and those meaning can be totally secret between those using the words and phrases.

    i.e. "pick up some milk on your way home." is recognized by most as what it says, but its abstract symbols in sequences that can have any meaning attached. Programmers do this all the time in writing functions, procedures, etc.. and on teh web when was the last time you search for something an got nothing but what you were looking for? (because someone else attached a different meaning to a word or phrase, etc..

    Simply put, the spy cent is so totally wasteful of resources. The best thing that can come from it is overcoming the need for it.

    1. Re:Hard fact of the matter... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Effort spent on codebreaking is one of the most cost-effective segments of a nation's defense budget. A million square foot data center is likely to be far less costly than an aircraft carrier, and it's likely to have more impact.

      In wars codebreaking has often been the difference between success and failure. You are unlikely to break every code, but consider the effect that the US being able to read Japanese codes just prior to the battle of Midway, and what would have happened if they hadn't.

      What is the cost of losing an engagement that would have prolonged the war with Japan?

      With the types of wars that are being fought today codebreaking is even more likely to be valuable since conventional strategies are less effective.

  45. Quantum? by vinn · · Score: 1

    If they think they need a facility that big, it sounds like they're anticipating collecting A LOT of communication. We all know most stuff isn't encrypted, but a lot of the important stuff is. Anyway, does this mean they've got a real set of "quantum" computers? - and I use that loosely because the few commercial items out there haven't proved themselves yet.

    --
    ----- obSig
  46. Hiding secrets from the future with math. by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The former Soviets got caught re-using their one time pads after a year.

    "Best of all, your secret: nothing extant could extract it.
    By 2025 a children's Speak-and-Spell could crack it.

    They were thinking, who would store the eTexts for that long, since OTP is unbreakable?

    You can't hide secrets from the future with math.
    You can try, but I bet that in the future they laugh,
    at the half-assed schemes and algorithms amassed
    to enforce cryptographs in the past."

    - MC Frontalot, Secrets from the Future

    Secrets cost money. How long do you need to keep them? Today we believe - with good reason - that most cryptographic protocols are secure. Bue even if that's true (and there's no guarantee), why not hoover up the data while it's available and wait for your opponent to slip up, or your mathematicians (or computer engineers) to make a breakthrough, whichever comes first?

  47. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    Why do you think they built it in Utah?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  48. Reminder: by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

    Your federal taxes are due on April 15th. Let's all tip them a little bit more for providing us with such great service.

    --
    The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  49. US Debt Solution by Nethead · · Score: 1

    This isn't about reading your mail. This is to crack all the VPNs from retail stores so they can track what you buy. They then sell this to marketers to help pay off the US debt. If that doesn't pull in enough money, then they just start grabbing credit card numbers.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  50. Why is this happening? by choke · · Score: 1

    Why is this happening? We're being robbed by bankers who appear to be above justice (bank of america), ruled by politicians who are installed by the same big-money criminals that are bankrupting us and printing money to cover unfinanced wars and bailouts of corrupt institutions, our teachers are taking pay cuts and we have the highest medical care costs in the world and THIS is what the government needs to spend money on?

    This town needs an enema.

    --
    "No good deed goes unpunished"
  51. Re:the Future by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    Whatever we conceive to be the "future" knowledge of cryptography *now* is probably where they are already at, at the NSA. They were decades ahead of everyone else for the longest time, until crypto broke into the public consciousness - they are undoubtedly still a decade or two ahead of the masses.
    I *highly* recommend the book "Crypto" by Stephen Levy, if you haven't read it.
    The answer with all personal cryptography is to provide just enough difficulty in solving it to protect the information long enough to suit your purposes. Nothing will ever prevent the future decipherment of your text down the road, if anyone cares to try to decipher it and has the resources (i.e. this new facility).
    The only other solution to crypto that can help you is for more people to use it routinely for everything, thus obscuring your traffic in a sea of other traffic. Thats no protection at all if they already have their eyes on you of course.
    Basically we're fucked with regards to privacy via encryption.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  52. Re:Notice how the "crypto guys" are the "old guys" by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile, he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  53. Re:If anyone in Mensa can break it by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    That's why I put a lot of "weasel word qualifiers". What I have is a couple of very good ideas, based on new possibilities of the Cloud that were not available before, and some general properties of computers I do not believe have been exploited.

    There's a couple of good replies - but they're all AC's! THAT's fascinating!

    My basic problem is that true per one of the AC's above, I don't have the chops to finish off the job - the best I can do is proof of concept demos. I've glanced over the Schneier stuff before, and it's a fair point too. But then again, below national critical interest, I think there's room here. After all, we can't even be bothered to read articles!

    There's a middle ground though, in the obscurity, and that's why my general question was in fact to test myself against a couple of real Pros. I don't think AC can crack my stuff in three hours, but I don't expect it to stand up forever either. In fact I did get a reply from a fellow who works in web security, so I'll see what he thinks.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  54. Re:One time pads by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I think I found my answer. Let's hope I phrase it right.

    I was definitely thinking of one time pads but I ended up in 1-time digital Book Ciphers with extra obfuscation using high*er* entropy than a regular Book Cipher.

    So the breakability is proportional to the non-randomness of the gobbledygook against the skill of the analyst. I was headed towards Schneier's Multi-Encryption but the better answer is CD/Downloadable 1-time pads.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  55. Obigitary xkcd by isorox · · Score: 1

    Why would they spend so much money when they could just buy a wrench? http://xkcd.com/538/

    1. Re:Obigitary xkcd by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      How do you deploy the wrench if you are unable to determine upon whom one should apply it?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.