Slashdot Mirror
NSA Foils Much Internet Encryption
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is reporting that the NSA has 'has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show. ... The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.'" You may prefer Pro Publica's non-paywalled version, instead, or The Guardian's.
For awesome powa
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I wonder if their list includes SSH
I believe the "working with industries to install backdoors" part, but the cracking internet standards encryption? Nope. The report doesn't even say what they are supposed to have cracked, only some nebulous "widely used internet encryption". Do they have a ton of computation power? Yes. Do they have some magical break on AES that no one in academia knows about or can even fathom? No. Just some FUD.
From Bruce Schneier Here and here.
Also a nice call to arms here.
"I have resisted saying this up to now, and I am saddened to say it, but the US has proved to be an unethical steward of the internet. The UK is no better."
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
1. The NSA actively worked to gain control of standards processes and subvert them.
2. The NSA covertly employs people in telcos without the knowledge of the telcos.
The sound you hear is the sound of the last 20 years of work in academic and industry, on standards
and code, on processes and procedures, quietly disintegrating.
The three organisations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the story because of the value of a public debate about government actions [...] .
Yet, the article does claim this:
"Project Bullrun deals with NSA's abilities to defeat the encryption used in specific network communication technologies. Bullrun involves multiple sources, all of which are extremely sensitive." The document reveals that the agency has capabilities against widely used online protocols, such as HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), used to protect online shopping and banking.
But they also quote Snowden that:
"Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on," he said before warning that NSA can frequently find ways around it as a result of weak security on the computers at either end of the communication.
Maybe we still have some hope?
So I'm left with the impression that the NSA will add features in return for improved access.
SELinux comes to mind as a gift from the NSA to the Linux community. A gift with a hidden payload.
Hmm.... We can call it Trojan Linux. Ribbed for your pleasure. The ultimate in back door penetration.
the NSA has done over a 100,000,000 million legal searches.
From all the leaked records, 22,000 are questionable. Those 22,000 lie everywhere between needing a judicial interpretation, to blatant breech.
The leaks also show NSA's number one whistle blower to the courts is the NSA. They report them and correct them.
Not to excuse there blatantly illegal searches, but to thing the whole system is some corrupt entity that s out to get everyone is simply wrong. /. claim.
No evidences supports that at all.we have a lot of hope becasue none of the evidences shows it to be nearly as bad as the media claims. And certainly nowhere near where the chicken littles on
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Does anyone really find this surprising? Wasn't it a few years back that the NSA told the banks that 128-bit encryption was perfectly safe, but mandated that the military switch to 256?
surely there should be a ripe market niche for some smart geek to 3D print arduino-controlled quadcopters to facilitate key exchange. hmmmm... hold on, still a few bugs to be worked out...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The NSA can crack 4096-bit PGP keys? I doubt it. Seems like FUD to dissuade people from even attempting to use encryption
From ProPublica:
In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.
Who else remembers the debacle about the government no longer purchasing Lenovo computers? I remember some people saying that if the U.S. government is making all this fuss about it, they're probably the ones doing it.
This seems to indicate those people are correct.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
By any stretch of the definition it fits the pattern as an organization that has a harmful, if not outright destructive, impact on the stability of the country and its relationships to other countries.
But probably they already have more than enough dirt on any politician to keep them in line. It's kinda scary if you think about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The raw document provides some more details but remains not especially explicit.
"The fact that NSA/CSS has some capabilities against the encryption in TLS/SSL, HTTPS, SSH, VPNs, VoIP, WEBMAIL, and other network communication technologies".
Capabilities are defined here as NSA/CSS ability to exploit a specific technology. This may encompass acquiring and processing plaintext data and/or acquiring, decrypting and processing encrypted data.
So do you want the NSA to break Syria's encryption about their chemical weapons attacks?
Or do you prefer we not know that the Syrian government uses chemical weapons to kill civilian populations, affecting public policy?
Which social contract would you prefer government to break? the "Government shouldn't know private activities of foreign governments" or "Government shouldn't allow foreign governments to kill civilians"?
If your privacy is important, then you think that means your government shouldn't monitor foreign communications, correct? And that means you think it's ok for foreign governments to kill civilians as they please? And if you think foreign governments should be allowed to kill civilians, then I guess you don't donate to charity either? Why would you want to help other people, after all?
You can pick either charity or privacy, but you can't have both. Sorry. That's because bad guys have power, and you need more power to overcome those bad guys for the purposes of charity.
So charity or privacy? What's it going to be?
Won't somebody please think of the civilians!
All else aside, if you think the NSA breaks codes in order to prevent civilian casualties, or for "charity", you have another thing coming. They do it to provide intelligence to the US government to facilitate furthering its national interest, in whatever form that may take. And if you think civilian casualties or chemical weapons are the actual reason we are considering whether or not to attack Syria, you have yet another thing coming.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
"Government shouldn't allow foreign governments to kill civilians"?
Incidentally, that policy also applies to the Syrian government versus the US. Cos', you know, the US is a foreign government and airstrikes would surely also kill civilians.
Also, your entire post is a false dichotomy.
I don't think the NSA has to break actual keys brute-force, but with information leakage it has been shown that data can be sussed-out of an encrypted stream (particularly an interactive one). Given sufficient leakage of known quantities, keys can be broken in much less time.
As we've seen just recently, even something as innocuous as HTTP compression over a SSL link can result in serious information leakage by anyone monitoring the size of the payloads.
Encryption streams, in general, require additional random data to be inserted into the stream and for the salt to be continuously modified (i.e. feedback) to remain strong. If one does neither of those things than the information leakage increases to the point where the keys can be broken without spending years of cpu cycles.
-Matt
There are a surprisingly large number of public key generators with weak random number generators:
And those are the ones we know about.
For open source systems, the person or persons who inserted the weak code should be identified and kicked off the project. It may just be incompetence, but that's a good reason to keep them out of security-critical areas.
Weak keys don't just let the NSA in. They let the People's Liberation Army of China in, too.
I can see (although I don't necessarily agree with) the argument that we have no expectation of privacy on metadata, but surely there is an expectation of pricacy on encrypted data. Surely the fact that the user has encrypted his data (or knows that it will be) provides an expecation of privacy that would invoke a 4th amendment protection.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The phrase is "you have another think coming".
I do. I do give a fuck about people who nerve gas to kill civilians in large amounts. If you don't, you are a sociopath.
How did the NSAs ability to decrypt most of the encrypted communications of the world prevent Syria's chemical attack on its own people?
Or even help after the fact, for that matter?
How is helping Syria's people even part of the NSAs charter?
Now that we know the NSA can intercept and decrypt any message, doesn't it also mean that they can change the message to whatever they want, re-encrypt it, and pull it out in a court of law as evidence?
If they do, or even if they don't, I can now say they did, and they can't prove they didn't.
Spy on foreign governments and foreign citizens. They need to stay the fuck away from Citizens of the United States of America. Spying on Americans is what other governments are for.
The NSA is operating far outside of its charter. Put them straight.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Actually, you will get neither if the NSA is able to read all encrypted communication. Simply put, if the government has the ability to penetrate all encrypted communications, there will be no privacy. If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny. Given a choice between a tyranny and dead Syrians, I choose the dead Syrians. I don't like the idea of people being killed by their government but I'd rather have the Syrian government killing Syrians than the American government killing Americans, something which will eventually happen if we lose our civil rights.
Don't doubt for a minute that there are forces in the government that are working toward that. They're mostly not evil people and most don't really understand what the ramifications of what they are doing, but history does repeat itself and there is plenty of history that demonstrates what happens when a government can do whatever it wants. Orwell's "1984" is fiction, not history, but it is based upon history and basic psychology. If we want to retain our civil rights, we need to fight and struggle for them, both in the courts and in civil disobedience if necessary.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Richard Stallman warned us about this decades ago. It is incredible how people are still able to dismiss his warnings as more and more of his predictions come into reality.
I'd like us to continue treating encryption as weapons and regulate its export accordingly. Unfortunately, it is not really possibly — any enemy worth the designation would be able to get it anyway, because moving an algorithm is much easier than a gun. And, unlike guns, you only need to move an algorithm once.
I wish I had sufficient confidence in my own government to be able to sincerely pick charity... Unfortunately, I do not. If the President can already ask the IRS to hurt opposition's finances, what's to prevent him from asking the NSA to look into the opposition's e-mails? The sort of thing, that got Nixon to resign is barely an issue with today's Americans...
However, according to an earlier article about Snowden's interaction with journalist(s), PGP (with sufficiently large keys) is still unbreakable even to the NSA — at least, as far Snowden was aware:
So that's, what a particularly private person should be using for all of his communications...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative and everything to do with the power of government.
From Bruce Schneier:
Dismantling the surveillance state won't be easy. Has any country that engaged in mass surveillance of its own citizens voluntarily given up that capability? Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? Whatever happens, we're going to be breaking new ground.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Yes, it is. Citation: http://grammarist.com/usage/another-think-coming/
Why exactly is this so? Of course, it would be rather uncomfortable to have no privacy, but would it necessarily lead to tyranny? Why not the opposite, for example — if no one's dealings are private and all information (from banking transactions, to kissing, to bowel movements) about everyone is readily available to whoever cares, wouldn't it be harder to subdue the electoral process, for example?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Plenty of people like me cared. Just because you (or even most people you noticed) didn't care doesn't mean " we " didn't.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Because that world would never come to be. What we'd have is certain people being completely transparent and other, more privileged, people having privacy. All of the shady stuff that happens today would continue to happen in private, but everyone would also know about every BM you made.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Though I sympathize with the gist of your position, I must question this particular argument:
Why exactly is this so? Of course, it would be rather uncomfortable to have no privacy, but would it necessarily lead to tyranny? Why not the opposite, for example — if no one's dealings are private and all information (from banking transactions, to kissing, to bowel movements) about everyone is readily available to whoever cares, wouldn't it be harder to subdue the electoral process, for example?
You would make it much, much easier to "subdue the electoral process". If you're currently the party in power and facing re-election, you first kill everyone who donates money to the opposition--everybody stops giving them money, hampering their campaign. Then you kill anyone who's given any hint that they might vote for the opposition. You and your cohorts get re-elected. Rinse and repeat, and eventually nobody dares form an opposition party, much less support one. If anybody says or does anything that remotely sounds like rebellion, you kill them too. Your party stays in power indefinately, the only things that might end your reign are a split in your party, or killing off so many people that there not enough people left to work and your economy collapses.
Yeah, 'accidental' civilian deaths, or deaths from 'necessary collateral damage' are so very noble and just.
In Serbia the US/NATO 'accidentally' bombed a farmers market, two hospitals, the Chinese embassy, civilian radio/TV stations, bridges on the wrong side of the country with civilians on them, etc. Also random factories that weren't military-related industry (eg. tobacco) - Interestingly the tobacco factory got bought by Phillip Morris a couple years later...
Chemical weapons are abhorrent, absolutely. But unless use is widespread, picking winners and causing more death and destruction isn't ideal, neither.
Sent from my PDP-11
> I'd like us to continue treating encryption as weapons and regulate its export accordingly.
Except that:
- encryption is not a weapon so treating it as such makes no sense.
- the rest of the world is able to invent encryption algorithms too. While creating good encryption requires very specialized knowledge and skill, these things are not exclusive to the US.
- strong encryption is a requirement for electronic commerce, when the rest of the world does not have access to encryption this hurts the US financially.
Your can configure your HTTPS server to use forward secrecy. Forward secrecy uses one-time keys, generated by between the website and the browser for the single session. Most modern browsers support it. But it generally requires compiling the latest version of OpenSSL and the compiling Apache 2.4.x against that, not using the Apache 2.2.x versions that are standard in most of the Linux distros. More detail also here.
If you set up your webserver this way, and your visitors use the right browsers, they NSA's having good copies of the site's certificates won't gain them much. At least that's what Ivan Risti's saying. On TLS/SSL stuff, there may be no one better.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
No, the article wasn't referring to AES. AES was developed by a pair of Belgian cryptographers as part of an open competition. The NSA approves the use of AES to protect Top Secret information. They didn't put a back door in AES.
The article was referring to the Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator (Dual EC DRBG), published as part of SP800-90. The DRBG uses a set of constants, like many crypto algorithms. The NSA, as the designer of the DRBG, selected the constants. Microsoft researchers noted that if the constants were carefully chosen, the NSA could predict future outputs of the DRBG. Despite what the New York Time article says, the NSA probably didn't do that. No one was going to use this DRBG anyway, except for the NSA and their partners, so they would have very little reason to sneak in a backdoor. Still, it's a bad property to have in a crypto algorithm. You should really explain the provenance of any constants used in a crypto algorithm, and there was no explanation of how the Dual EC DRBG constants were selected.
"The NSA spends $250m a year on a program which, among other goals, works with technology companies to 'covertly influence' their product designs."
So, the NSA creates exploit in everything they can influence. And they can influence almost everything. The NSA purchases exploit. Many times, they must be purchasing info on the exploits that they created. They preserve exploit. They mask everything in secrecy. And it all enhances the exploit marketplace.
If we could just get the NSA out of the exploit market, the whole thing would probably collapse like a real-estate broker's wet dream.
The other chilling revelation is the names of these programs:
"The NSA's codeword for its decryption program, Bullrun, is taken from a major battle of the American civil war. Its British counterpart, Edgehill, is named after the first major engagement of the English civil war, more than 200 years earlier."
The NSA has crappy internal discipline. Instead of using meaningless codewords for project names, their codewords frequently describe the project. PRISM described how the NSA collects info. These project names shout that the NSA is fomenting civil war. They are at war with the rest of the country.
If we survive as a nation of liberty, the NSA must serve us, not attack us.
Perhaps we shouldn't have provided the Syrians with the precursor chemicals to make weapons in the first place.
Your position is laughable. You have the precursor chemicals to make weapons under your kitchen sink. It's basically impossible to have any kind of modern industrial base without them.
People like you are why I can't buy fucking cold medicine anymore.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
We do have such people in domestic economy, hence the wall street collapse. The total collapse of the reputation of the USA just takes longer to hit the ground is all.
Except it's nothing even close to that. The voyeurs with badges are absolutely shitting themselves over the face that someone had the nerve to expose their secrets. They sit in their tower, safe from any public scrutiny at all. They have so much privacy that you can't even tell others that you got a `warrant' served to force you to put in a backdoor apparently.
The Guardian article refers to it as a "10 year program" which would put it's inception in the Bush Jr. years. As for the EU is better argument, it looks like my own country's government was a prime mover in this. Way to go guys.
Expanding on the above post, if the US is installing and/or exploiting bug related backdoors in
commercial software it would take relatively few to reach 99+% coverage.
If you can get the OS's you're set as you can hit 99% with less than a half dozen.
Likewise with cellular providers, handset makers, virus scanners, printer (driver) manufacturers,
cpu manufacturers, router manufacturers, email clients, web browsers, office suites, etc....
Take any category of software or hardware most of which are dominated by only a few major players
and if you can get your foot in the door with any of them then you have control of the computer or
device. I'm not sure that linux even has that much advantage as there are few if any people who
compile everything from scratch and even if they do, how hard would it really be to get an
undocumented bug inserted into one of several hundred programs that run on a typical computer.
If they're willing to throw enough time, money, and power behind it, there is no way someone can
avoid being eavesdropped on.
You can't do much with the knowledge that a government wants you dead.
But a government can do a lot with the knowledge that you want it replaced.
Rethinking email
I don't care what discussions Syria has internally about chemical weapons. I do care when they actually USE them, though I doubt that cruise missiles are an effective or moral response. The fact Syria HAD such weapons seemed to be known already, we're only now getting into a tiff over it since they may have actually been used. But If you think you need to decrypt someone's communications to figure that out if WMD has been used, you've got bigger problems, because Syria or the next Syria could end up using sneakernet for that communications, or a form of encryption you can't decrypt. This whole reliance on knowing everyone's electronic thoughtcrimes about WMD or whatever is simply laziness. There's this idea that you don't need spies on the ground who risk detection anymore and that it can all be done from an office chair in Langley, and frankly, that's dangerous thinking that puts us all at risk. Similar the idea that you don't need boots on the ground and can wage an effective pushbutton war. You can certainly kill a lot of people with a pushbutton, but that's not the same thing. However, it's easy to sell these ideas to get big budgets for cool equipment and the ability to violate privacy just like the Stasi and you don't even have to get out if your office chair to earn your paycheck. I'm sorry but it's a really lousy long-term solution for the rest of us.
Why are you lot the only people in the world entitled to privacy?
Spy on foreign governments and foreign citizens. They need to stay the fuck away from Citizens of the United States of America. Spying on Americans is what other governments are for.
The NSA isn't actually spying on US CItizens, they're just storing the data in easy-to-interpret databases so that other governments can do the spying for the NSA. Oh, and probably also providing those governments with the tools they need to better spy on US Citizens.
Skirting the law is easy with the right thinkers. New Zealand was doing a similar thing with the GCSB by sending their contractors off to work for other government agencies. The contractors, being employed by the other agencies and hidden from the GCSB by a really secure "please don't let us know if you use our computers while working for them" policy, weren't part of the GCSB, so didn't have to play by their rules (which basically said "no spying on NZ citizens", recently changed to "only spy on NZ citizens if the government-selected overseer decides there's good reason for it").
I also give a fuck about the Syrian civilians who've been gassed.
I also realise that bombing Syrian won't bring them back to life.
It also occurs to me that the Assad régime's reaction to strikes against their country might well employ some "Now see what you made me do" logic to justify gassing some more.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The following documents were published in 2006 by NIST that relate to IT security:
SP 800-96 PIV Card to Reader Interoperability Guidelines
SP 800-103 DRAFT An Ontology of Identity Credentials, Part I: Background and Formulation
SP 800-92 Guide to Computer Security Log Management
SP 800-89 Recommendation for Obtaining Assurances for Digital Signature Applications
SP 800-88 Guidelines for Media Sanitization
SP 800-69 Guidance for Securing Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition: A NIST Security Configuration Checklist
SP 800-18 Rev.1 Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
the NSA has done over a 100,000,000 million legal searches.
That means there is a court order for each of the searches. Assuming that every of the 300 million inhabitants of the U.S. is a certified judge, that still means that every of those judges is responsible for about 330000 court orders. Assuming that it takes about half an hour to evaluate and fill such an order and that an average month has about 165 working hours, it means that the average U.S. citizen has spent about 1000 months or 80 years of signing court orders for legal searches so far.
Of course assuming that all of those searches were legal.
Sounds legit to me.
First off, assume encryption is broken.
Second, if you're relying on a third party to encrypt for you, then assume that they read your stuff before they even encrypted it.
Third, if you're at all concerned about this stuff, then don't do anything on the internet that you don't want the entire world to know about.
None of this news story should be a surprise to anyone. Everyone should already have assumed that the NSA cracked it all, and everyone should already have assume that the handy third party web sites are busily sending all your data to the NSA or someone else.
This doesn't mean it's hopeless. It means don't be naive and trust third parties if you want security. Security does not coexist with convenience. Encrypt your sensitive data before you hand it off to someone else for transport (even then it may be broken, but it's vastly more secure than handing plain text to third party site and asking them to encrypt it on your behalf).
So because there are scary bad men out there the government should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants to be able to catch them? Even if that includes massively violating the privacy of every citizen (never know who's a scary bad man!!) in the country? Even if it includes building a massive database filled with who the fuck knows what that never, ever, gets erased? You know how they say the internet forgets nothing? This is even worse, since random fruit loops on the internet don't have access to your phone records, your banking records, your phone calls, your location and every niggling little detail of your entire life! If you think it's bad that /b/ can access something stupid you said on your blog and troll you even if you delete it, just wait until some scary bad men, I mean trusted public servants, get ahold of all that juicy personal information that those stalwart do-gooders of the NSA put together for them, they'll have a field day! Accidently piss off some bureaucrat at the DMV? He'll just call his cousin at the Ministry of Love and they'll whip up some charges doubleplusquick then off to the Re-education centers (actually, that's too expensive, off to the work camps, more than likely).
If you really think it's just "metadata" you're deluded. All this stuff that's coming out used to sound like the fever dreams of the loony fringe, and god damn does it suck having to listen to them smugly say "We told you so."
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
I interpreted that the GP as meaning that as it is the government eliminating privacy there would be an implicit asymmetry in the access of such information. That is, the government, or more properly its agents, would have unprecedented access into the personal lives of, well, everybody. The statement "If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny" does not imply that absolutely all privacy is removed, rather, the privacy of ordinary citizens is removed and those who can pay or otherwise maintain control of their own privacy, i.e. by brute force, have a grossly unbalanced amount of power and tyranny results from the malicious use of that power.
I mean really, if the NSA can break all encryption what exactly leads to the conclusion that everyone can do it? Even in the event that some clever crackers find and exploit whatever backdoors the NSA had placed in some encryption method most people would not have the resources or skills to intercept enough of other peoples traffic to make any real use of that ability. We've been hearing about how the NSA basically stores all, or nearly all, internet traffic. Do you have a tap at ATT&T as well?
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
lol ok not gonna argue with Judas Priest
how do we know that the session keys are chosen securely and not divulged with steganography somehow? I know that products have existed which did exactly that, revealing part of the encryption key in the encrypted data stream (and I know that because the vendor was fairly open about the practice).
If you're going to make such a massive claim, you need to back it up. Name the vendor/manufacturer and equipment, or I, and every other slashdot reader, will consider this bullshit.
Please help metamoderate.
You guys have a good think going!
Only dumb birds land downwind.
So it's okay if you're spied on by Australians, and Australians are spied on by the USA, and any intelligence is shared?
While you guys are cracking jokes on ROT13, a letter to NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=0 ) caught my attention
- - - B Missouri Reader
Missouri
On the one hand, âoeIn the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,â but on the other hand the liberties of Americans are at risk by such programs.
In other words, we face a situation where the strongest, most secure nation can no longer be a nation that guarantees the rights of its citizens.
Privacy is not simply a convenience, but it is intimately linked to free speech and to the future prospects for democracy in America. Key elements of the Constitution provide a framework where incumbents can be challenged in free elections, ensuring that better ideas and better leaders will become available to guide the nation. But nobody can win an election against an incumbent with unlimited access to the communications of its rivals. We're not there yet, but the trend is in that direction.
It is high time that members of both parties in Congress get off of their high horses and address this growing threat to our democracy. Technical and legal hurdles must be cleared, and it may even be necessary to make significant changes in the way the internet works. But time passes very quickly in the technology world, and the clock has already been ticking for quite a long time."
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Being able to write in shorthand is good and all... but how is that going to help?
(Or did you mean steganography?)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Your whole post is fucking retarded:
1. Encryption isn't a weapon. Period. Comparing the two is fucking stupid.
You do realize that up until around 1992 cryptography was considered a munition in the US and the export of which was heavily regulated.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Stop writing. Just stop.
Private keys are not sent anywhere, ever. If someone is generating your private key for you, in a browser nonetheless, you are doing PKI wrong. Period.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6