Slashdot Mirror
Security After the Death of Trust
An anonymous reader writes "Simon St. Laurent reviews the options in the wake of recent NSA revelations. 'Security has to reboot. What has passed for strong security until now is going to be considered only casual security going forward. As I put it last week, the damage that has become visible over the past few months means that we need to start planning for a computing world with minimal trust.'"
Shouldn't that have been the paradigm from the beginning if you really wanted security?
Just because you think a person or organization can mostly be trusted today, doesn't mean it will always be the case.
I try to get my family to stop using gmail, and instead use a local mail program which they can then use for end to end encryption, private non-cloud storage of their old emails, etc, but they don't want to bother. They'd rather have google storing all their emails and are fine with the advertising they get shown as a result of the data-mining of the email contents. They don't care about the NSA because they "aren't doing anything wrong".
That's what security is up against: people who want to put all their information in "the cloud" and don't really care what that means for privacy and security or even services that can disappear at any time or change their terms of service at any moment. It's all about the simplicity, and nothing else matters except allowing it to be a brainless usage model.
We never really trusted our government.
The problem with elections is that the government always wins :(
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Take the view of the Pentagon and assume that you are at all times compromised. You probably are. Any given entity can be broken into by a determined hacker. Talk to a pen tester sometime and ask them how many places they have failed to break into. The entire concept of trust is that you can send data privately over the Internet, you can't unless you encrypt your data offline ahead of time.
On the Internet trust is all about identity and encryption. For most people that translates into a certificate that is used to supply SSL. People then assume that because they are using SSL that they can now trust a given connection. There is no justification for trust and there never has been, the entire concept of trust is a misunderstanding of the concept of how a Certificate Authority works.
All a Certificate Authority does is say that their is an unbroken chain of identity from a given point to a given point. Even then a Certificate can be forged or stolen or issued improperly, and even if controls detect a bad certificate in use most people will click the button to use the bad certificate anyways.
All of this assumes that a given government entity hasn't used a court order to force a Certificate Authority to replicate a Certificate so that your data can be seized. Certificate Authorities cooperate with things like court orders, they don't self destruct like Lavabit. That whole backstory with Lavabit self destructing - it was a fight over getting the key that was used because he wouldn't hand over his private key.
People also forget that SSL is wholly dependent on Certificate Authorities. SSL is used to encrypt data with a key when data is in transit. The problem is that data anyone that owns the network can conduct an MITM attack against your key. SSL is fundamentally broken because it presents a perception of trust when it is incapable of providing that level of trust.
Why would a government not take the effort to look into what people do on a daily basis when they have the technology .
To me it was also predictable, because I've read history books and noticed again and again that the most ruthless, sociopathic, often bloodthirsty control freaks are the ones who want power so badly that they'll do anything to achieve it. That's the nature of government. Public awareness and understanding is the only real thing holding it back. We have public apathy and ignorance because most people have been softened and made complacent by convenience and pointless indulgences (hundreds of channels of brain-dead horse-shit, news media controlled by 5 corporations all of which are cozy with government, public education for obedient workers and not for self-directed thinkers).
But that the government would want to spy on its people and would use technology in that manner, no that's not remotely surprising to anyone who understands the nature of governments and the people who most want to run them. What we need is a majority of people who comprehend this basic fact that has been repeatedly observed throughout history. The stakes are higher now, and become higher the more our tech advances. Our leaders have noted that bread and circuses works, that's because they actually do learn from history.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I trust some people's knowledge and expertise in one domain, but not in another. Likewise, if I were a US citizen running an entirely legal US company I'd have not the slightest problem with trusting the NSA cloud with all my company data (if they had such a service). I trust AES with keeping my personal data unencryptable by crooks and criminals, but I probably wouldn't use AES to encrypt all my data if I were a member of the Chinese military. It really depends in the threat scenario and your goals. An unconditional discussion of trust is fruitless.