Yahoo Encrypting Data In Wake of NSA Revelations

Nerval's Lobster writes "Following reports that the NSA aggressively targets Google and Yahoo servers for surveillance, Yahoo is working to encrypt much of the data flowing through its datacenters. 'As you know, there have been a number of reports over the last six months about the U.S. government secretly accessing user data without the knowledge of tech companies, including Yahoo,' Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer wrote in a Nov. 18 blog posting. 'I want to reiterate what we have said in the past: Yahoo has never given access to our data centers to the NSA or to any other government agency.' In order to make Yahoo's systems more secure, she added, the company is introducing SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encryption to Yahoo Mail with a 2048-bit key. That security measure will supposedly be in place by January 8, 2014. Beyond that, Yahoo plans on encrypting all information that moves between its datacenters by the end of the first quarter of 2014. Around that same time, the company will give users the option to encrypt all data flowing to and from Yahoo; it will also 'work closely with our international Mail partners to ensure that Yahoo co-branded Mail accounts are https-enabled,' Mayer wrote. (While it's not a crushing expense for massive companies such as Yahoo, introducing this sort of security does add to infrastructure and engineering costs, and takes time to actually put in place.)"

Comments

Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[Press2ToContinue]

Not mentioned was which encryption schemes Yahoo is considering. Maybe it's simply HTTPS, but is that good enough? Are there other possibilities?

Since the NSA has backdoored encryption schemes in the past, how can Yahoo determine if the scheme they implement is actually going to prevent the NSA from decrypting it? It's a serious question, and you can patly answer "you can't", but if I were responsible for implementing this scheme, this is the question I would pose to the team and require some sincere digging because it would be an even bigger embarrassment to implement the encryption, and then read another Snowden-esque revelation showing it was for nothing, and I was made a fool of.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[Shakrai]

Not mentioned was which encryption schemes Yahoo is considering. Maybe it's simply HTTPS, but is that good enough

HTTPS isn't an encryption scheme, it's a mechanism to establish a (theoretically) secure channel of communications. The actual ciphers to be used are negotiated between server and client, and can range from "You're kidding, right?" (RC4) to "The Federal Government claims it's good enough for Top Secret data." (AES-256)

As with everything, there's a level of third party trust (the certificate authorities) or shoe-leather (exchanging keys in person) that's required regardless of the ciphers you end up using. That's a whole different discussion though.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah. SSL/TLS. That's just as effective against a determined state actor, with access to the telecommunication infrastructure, as a Kleenex Condom.

"You don't need to see his papers. This is the certificate you are looking for..."

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[Dahamma]

IPSec is no more an encryption scheme than HTTPS. Both are protocols that use authentication and encryption schemes, they just work at different layers of the stack.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[EdIII]

The issue is not whether they can brute force encryption.

We already assume they have the capability of brute forcing all encryption within a reasonable time frame. Something hilariously well protected? 3-6 months.

That being said, the NSA, still only has so many units of discrete work it can perform in a given period . Now, unless you are going to try to convince me that the NSA has computing power many orders beyond the total computing power of the entire planet, it means there is still safety in numbers.

Mass. Surveillance.

That's the real game. That's the real threat to privacy and freedom. If everyone makes sure that the NSA has to waste those work units decoding a pair of testicles you sent to your best friend, the NSA is still left with picking and choosing its battles .

I'm okay with that. If the NSA really can break all of my communication and files within a week or two, but can only do it for several dozen Americans at a time during that period, we are all still protected as a whole. The NSA can still do its job. Yes, there was an original job they ostensibly are supposed to perform in my best interests.

The sheer magnitude of what would need decryption for mass surveillance makes it illogical to worry about, IF WE ARE USING ENCRYPTION EVERYWHERE AND ZERO-KNOWLEDGE 3RD PARTY SERVICES. I can't stress that last part enough.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[swb]

Most of the SANs I've seen support disk encryption and IPSec encryption between the SAN and the host or OS talking to it. If your OS writes encrypted data to storage (encrypted filesystem) as well, you have two layers of encryption on the platter and two layers of encryption in transit.

Of course that doesn't address weaknesses in ciphers or key exchange systems, but it seems like it would make it a lot harder to get at the data because the only place it is decrypted is during interprocess communication (decrypting from the filesystem and before re-encrypting it for final transit to client).

Not that this trivializes that risk, but it seems to make it a lot tougher.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[Fwipp]

Yes, that is how encryption works. But if your key is large enough, the time & energy to brute force it will take much longer than your lifespan. As an example I just googled, brute-forcing AES-128 at 10 Petaflops would take 10 quintillion years (10^18). http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279619

The _real_ concern is that the NSA knows of weaknesses in these encryption schemes, and doesn't have to brute force it.

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[lgw]

No one is ever going to brute force a 256-bit symmetric key. Even if you imagine a matrioshka brain (turn the entire energy output of a star into computation) it would take longer than the age of the universe. A 128-bit symmetric key is safe from brute force vs all realistic threats.

If the math is flawed, OTOH, or your "random" key wasn't so random, it's easy (there is deep suspicion about the RNG built into Intel procs these days).

Re:Which Encryption Scheme is Safest? Can we tell?

[mlts]

It depends on where the "brains" are. Facebook (IIRC) has the redundancy on the backend app layer where coupled with NoSQL, if something drops... there is some redundancy built in somewhere to pick it off, or drop a couple tuples, but the tables still have their integrity. Whole servers can drop off the map, and Facebook will keep going. Isn't pretty, but their model really can handle stuff getting tossed here and there.

Apple, on the other hand, uses Teradata systems with NetApp appliances on the backend, so one large cloud provider does go with the more traditional storage stack model found in the enterprise. However, unlike losing a FB post or two, a user losing chunks of their data would not be a good thing, so Apple's model tends to be more rigidly ACID compliant.

Does it even matter...

[nashv]

...if they can be forced to turn over encryption keys at the whim of some NSA/government authourity?

Yahoo can't even keep spam out of my inbox

[JoeyRox]

Whereas Google can. When I think cutting-edge technology and encryption Yahoo is the last company that comes to mind.

Re:Yahoo can't even keep spam out of my inbox

[Dahamma]

While I would have agreed with you two weeks ago, bizarrely, I have recently started getting a ton of spam in my Gmail account - really obvious stuff that should have been filtered. And Yahoo has been almost perfect filtering the same crap. Several people I have talked to have noticed the same thing. It's almost like someone at Google accidentally turned off the spam filter...