Slashdot Mirror


RSA Flatly Denies That It Weakened Crypto For NSA Money

The Register reports that RSA isn't taking quietly the accusation reported by Reuters, based on documents released by Edward Snowden, that the company intentionally used weaker crypto at the request of the NSA, and accepted $10 million in exchange for doing so. RSA's defends the use of the Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator, stating categorically "that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA's products, or introducing potential 'backdoors' into our products for anyone's use."

12 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Trust none of them by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RSA denying it? "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" - Mandy Rice-Davies

    If this story turns out to be true, then RSA's name is mud. Only a complete and utter moron would buy from them after this.

    Same goes for the other companies who have been selling us out. Even Google and Microsoft who are now leaking stories about them boldly protecting their backbones from the NSA have been handing over our data, and in the case of Microsoft took cold hard cash to add backdoors to Skype and God knows what else. If you trust *any* of these companies you are a complete and utter moron.

  2. Not that strongly worded by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that the NSA has been lying to everyone with doublespeak--asking permission for X warrants when the warrants really covered umpteen billion warrants, things like that. So while this press release categorically denies "that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries[,]" it could still be truthful even if any ONE of the facts in that list is false.

    For example, "known" flawed random number generator--suppose the NSA knew it was flawed and RSA didn't. This denial does not contradict that.

    In the context of a topic where companies and government agencies are lying regularly by using careful diction, even a "strong" "categorical" denial has to eliminate the possibility of loopholes in order for it to be believable.

    1. Re:Not that strongly worded by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was my read of the statement as well. Essentially all they're denying is that they openly sold the rights to backdoor their software. It could still be the case that they wink-wink sold those rights. Or it could be the case that they were just dupes rather than in cahoots with the NSA; it's not entirely implausible that they thought they were helping out the NSA by making the change for a reason unrelated to backdooring the software.

  3. It's a very sad day by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a very sad day when we have media which prostituting themselves to the BIG BROTHER and companies betraying the trust of their customers for some breadcrumbs.

    If all that happened in a banana republic we may say "Oh, but they are banana republics".

    But no. All these are happening in the United States in America !

    What hath my beloved country turned into ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:It's a very sad day by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2. How much can you trust Snowden Up to this point he was just making claims against an agency that largely cannot (or will not) comment about their practices. Now he is making claims against a public company that could pursue him civilly for libel

      Eh? Really? Repeat that back to yourself and see if it makes any more sense the second time around...

      Snowden is wanted for serious crimes against the government of the United States of America, the penalties for which involve spending the rest of his life in a 8x10 foot concrete cell by himself.

      I think he is way, way past civil liabilities against a company or any suing it might do against him in a court of law.

  4. Re:RSA's name is now mud by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you are saying is incorrect. In the UK if I tell you a lie about someone, and you repeat it publicly, you can be sued for libel. The fault is yours for not verifying the damaging information before you published it. Merely printing a retraction isn't enough, because once the accusation is made it sticks in the public mind. Otherwise I can call you a pedo, and retract it later. It doesn't work that way. Sometimes a retraction might satisfy the defamed party, but if the damage is significant they can decide to sue you anyway. In this case no one would ever trust RSA again, so the damage is severe. If the story was fake, RSA could sue the Guardians arse off.

    As for your theory that competitors leaked this to damage RSA, you have not offered a shred of evidence, and your premise that the Guardian can print untrue stories without being sued for libel is false.

  5. Re:Actually ... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And, of course, the weasel words. Their intention was not to weaken the crypto, that was a side effect. The intention was to pocket $10mil and perhaps a favor to be named later.

  6. I don't trust anyone by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not trust Snowden just because he is Snowden. I do not know that guy in person. I only heard of his name after what he has disclosed what NSA had done - PRISM / GCHQ / tapping on foreign leaders, and so on.

    Every single "story" about a leak that has been linked to Snowden file is just that, a "story".

    After reading them, I re-traced the link back to the matter itself. If there are articles related to the matter, I give them a good read up.

    The case regarding RSA for example - there have been case studies since 2006 (and earlier) that can be used as reference to what has just been reported.

    That is why I say it is a very sad day when my country has turned into something worse than a banana republic.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I don't trust anyone by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's always an, um, excellent, sign when the company's own spokesweasels are asking you to accept the 'we were incompetent, really!' excuse.

      "we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA's products, or introducing potential 'backdoors' into our products for anyone's use."

      Their 'categorical denial' of the story is not a denial that they did enter a contract or engage in a project that did weaken RSA's product and introduce a backdoor into their products for somebody's use; but merely the assertion that they never did so intentionally. Slightly different things there...

    2. Re:I don't trust anyone by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they didn't do it for the NSA

      I know you're stating that rhetorically, but I'd like to answer it anyway. Read their relevant parts of their "denial" again:

      Recent press coverage has asserted that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries. We categorically deny this allegation.

      we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA's products, or introducing potential 'backdoors' into our products for anyone's use.

      They never denied entering a contract with the NSA. All they denied was that they entered a contract with the intention of undermining their own products, which is not something that they were being accused of by most reasonable people. As you said, it's far easier to attribute this to incompetence than malice, and most of us aren't accusing them of intentionally sabotaging their own products; we're accusing them of being negligent in their duties by not being careful enough in accepting gifts from players in the game who have competing interests. Moreover, as a publicly traded company, they've already had to disclose the budget of the division that received the funds, so we know that the funds were received and that a contract does exist.

      TL;DR: It's a standard non-denial denial. They denied the worst possible stuff that the sensationalists were accusing them of, while using strong words like "categorical" to give the impression they were denying everything, when really, they were merely denying a set of claims taken in whole, leaving wide open the accusations of the very realistic misdeeds they stood accused of.

  7. Yes, and US companies are losing billions by deanklear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    U.S. cloud providers have already lost business over the NSA leaks, but now the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has a report putting a dollar amount on the short-term costs: $21.5 to $35 billion over the next three years.

    ITIF based these estimates in part on the Cloud Security Alliance survey showing that 10 percent of officials at non-U.S. companies cancelled contracts with U.S. providers and 56 percent of non-U.S. respondents are hesitant to work with U.S. cloud based operators after the leaks.

    And before you have pity on US firms losing this cash, remember that they have been knowingly aiding the NSA and the CIA and any other government entity that came knocking for years, and they would still be handing over our data (and they probably still are) without any concerns had Snowden not exposed the extent of the NSA's illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and and brazenly stupid surveillance program.

    When Angela Merkel is comparing the NSA to the Stasi, we've got problems. When Chinese tech firms become more trusted than American tech firms, we've got problems. When a schmuck wearing a military costume -- which is a disgrace to people who served their country instead of their government -- lies to congress about spying on Americans and gets away with it, we've got problems. "General" Keith B. Alexander was head of Army Intelligence and missed the piles of evidence pointing towards 9/11, and even after he helped the state security apparatus morph into the world's largest and most expensive spying effort, the organization under his control has still failed to stop a single terrorist attack.

    The NSA, the CIA, and Mr. Alexander are a disgrace to our country, but they are unfortunately typical of American government, and the corporations that have been colluding with them for years. They're more interested in their own careers and dollar signs than they are about upholding the Constitution, but when they are caught, they hide behind their military titles and bullshit legalese because they have no redeeming qualities as individuals or as organizations.

    If it seems personal, its because it is personal. It may just be a coincidence that I am flagged constantly when I cross the border for "random" searches, but I live in a country where I can't even find out why I seem to be a magnet for the attention of the security state. For my own protection, I am not allowed to know what my government is doing. And now that the NDAA has passed, an American agent could pick me up and detain me indefinitely without a trial.

    Thanks for protecting American ideals from those totalitarian invaders, Mr. Alexander. You're doing a heckuva job.

  8. Re:Here's a better one. by spacepimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The test is simple. If Snowden lied, then the NSA and the President have nothing to charge him with. It is simple. They tried claling him a liar and a traitor guilty of treason in the same paragraph. When it was pointed out he couldn't be both they quickly stopped pretending he was lying.