Slashdot Mirror
Phil Zimmerman Launching Secure "Blackphone"
judgecorp writes "Famed cryptography activist Phil Zimmerman is set to launch Blackphone, a privacy-oriented phone which allows secure calls and messages. The phone is a joint venture between Zimmerman's Silent Circle communications provider and Geeksphone, the creator of the first Firefox phone, and will run PrivatOS, a secure version of Android. Zimmerman says the venture will be taking orders for the devices from February 24, after it is unveiled at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona."
Can the software be adapted to other phones?
First he blows away that obnoxious black kid, now he's going to blow us away with a black phone!
... because otherwise there's no way comnunication via this device is guaranteed to be secure (and probably not even then)
An interesting choice. I guess it is only logical, since Zimmerman had to shut down his encrypted e-mail service SilentCircle in the US. I hope that more businesses will move their operations outside the US, it seems to be the only language the United States government understands.
Hardware feature I would like to see:
-LED on when camera is taking pictures/recording.
-LED on when microphone is recording.
-Looking like a normal phone, If it screams PRIVACY phone, one might think ik have somthing to hide.
Software features:
-Restrict apps to a sandbox without telling them that. (feed apps fake data instead)
-Some kind of firewall/virtualiszation between apps i use at home and work and real private part.
-Secure boot. rootkit prevention. Including option by bypass the secure boot for open source mods.
Marketing features i would like to see:
-Real use cases. (like work/home phone virtualisation.)
-privacy is always a tradeoff. being online means giving away some of your data. what trade offs are made?
-Access to some more technical details HOW the pricay part is implemented and what has not been implemented.
-Respected names from the pricacy industy who did have to do something in the design/implementation phase. trust is important.
and ... open source... so useful parts can be reviewed and ported to populars android mods.
I don't see how we can trust this new phone or any other device out there. So many companies have said we can trust them with our data, and then to no one’s surprise they've been found to be in bed with the NSA. We need to understand that we now live in a world where Big Brother is always watching. The only way we can stop this is to get rid of the NSA and other agencies like it. Unfortunately though, too many people are fine with being watched. They think that was long as they have nothing to hide there is nothing to worry about. They are mistaken and it will cost them more than they could have ever imagined.
...their "The team" page doesn't mention a single software or hardware developer involved in creating the phone. Why aren't they worth to be on display along with the CEOs and whatnot?
and it will no doubt employ WSS aka Wireless Security Standard (internal name: What Snowden Said).
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
> -LED on when camera is taking pictures/recording.
> -LED on when microphone is recording.
No, no, no. What you want is a mechanical shutter over the camera, and a switch that physically opens the microphone's circuit (if you want convenience, make the microphone's switch be the camera's shutter).
With an LED, you have to trust the firmware to properly couple the light to the device. With a mechanical shutter, you can verify that it is physically impossible for the camera to see anything.
Geeksphone will most likely develop the software, and most of those "co-founders" are expert developers including Zimmerman himself.
And yet it presents a positive trend: "maybe the people can directly fight the power with technology".
Just as the music industry can't make the government to stop the sharing of files, however many laws it buys, because it's just not feasible, a simple tool like this might give everyone a liberty just by making it too hard to take it away from the people.
The average, non technical person is the one that gets caught (even for sneezing on public) in this kind of dragnet surveillance. The technical with a clue may use them, and maybe put them as policy for their companies, as is critical for them to have safe communications, so this is the target group. And the ones that they claim that they are after will rely on low tech communication anyway, so won't get caught. As with DRM, the ones that get hurt are the normal citizens and loyal consumers.
"They" know which SIM connects to which cell tower, so I don't understand how this phone prevents tracking. Did I miss something?
The interesting part is where does subvert really get any gov? The gov becomes addicted to a huge raw flow of data from people unaware of the total domestic surveillance network.
Once the public sees the reality of having a domestic surveillance network, their political use of the telcos and computers might change.
People contacting the press take on an East German like feel, they know they will be tracked down, but turn up to protest anyway.
Any new tool that allows people to use a network to chat with the press is great.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Even if the phone is as secure as claimed, one of the biggest violations of privacy is the collection of location data. And no security feature on the device will prevent Verizon/AT&T/etc from knowing what tower it has contacted, or providing that to any agency it wishes to.
Obviously, you can't expect your location to remain anonymous while you're talking on the phone, but you can trust that when you turn off the Cellular radio, that it really is off and you're not being tracked when you drive to your mistresses house. Once you get there, you can use her Wifi to check for voicemails/txt's and still remain anonymous.
I posted these same thoughts last time I saw a "secure" phone on slashdot. Apparently it was long enough ago that it's no longer in my post history?
Regardless, there are two options I am aware of: 1) end to end encryption or 2) insecure messages/communication
The problem with #1 is that it requires secure devices on BOTH ENDS of the communication. You get very little bonus security if your device is secure, but the text messages, emails, phone calles etc. go unencrypted over the wire. That's fine, but now I have to persuade my parents and all my friends to get THIS exact phone, understand how it works well enough to set it up, and actually use those features.
I have a lot of respect for Zimmerman, but I'm extremely skeptical.
Pretty much any bodega that sells GSM prepaid phones.
No sir I dont like it.
On the black phone, where did the PRNG come from?
How can we trust that the android version will be secure. As I see it, android is a data-monetization platform that also runs phones and tablets.
Not comforting at all.
A lot of the people that is there did a few things in the programming world, like PGP, zfone/zrtp, welcam, or kismet. But there are implied programmers when they are taking as base the safe parts of android, so linux, android, cyanogenmod and so on people probably will be in part responsible or taken part directly.
Anyway, regarding trust, the names of people that take decisions matter a lot, having there a lot of the people of Silent Circle and Geeksphone have an implied message.
The only name i don't see there is Ladar Levison, from Lavabit, that was in the Dark Mail Alliance, with Silent Circle. But if well will be a sister project, the focus will be in servers, not only mobile.
Sure it is secure but how secure? We all know no security is perfect, who tested this? Also how can we know that NSA will not ADD a device on postal to search. Is there a feature which disable such option? How much is the expected price? How much will we need to pay for our privacy? Furthermore, can I buy the phone without getting my name registered?
This is pretty much the reason I'd think about the Blackphone. Not to hide from the government(s), because that's an exercise in futility if we want to have connected technology. But because I'd rather make sure private entity A doesn't know what I do with private entity B without my consent; or at least minimize what they can know.
As for a honeypot... I think you may misunderstand what a honeypot is. A honeypot is a fake website, system, network, (insert entity); that seems appealing to a would be hacker or intruder, but in fact is a way for security to catch the intruder while also diverting their attention away from the real prize. To quote the opening line of the wikipedia entry, "in computer terminology, a honeypot is a trap set to detect, deflect, or, in some manner, counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems."
The Blackphone (and Tor) by definition would not be honeypots, as the users are not attempting to gain unauthorized access to them and they aren't being used as decoys to a real network.
They will be confiscated by the US border control, every time you pass it. No reason given.
Does this device provide any protection against location tracking?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't see any reason you couldn't route a call through Tor to hide your location. Of course, it's seeming more and more likely that parts of Tor have been compromised, so maybe that won't help all that much.
While I'm all for privacy and the government sticking it's nose out of my business I don't see how this phone really addresses the problem of privacy. The huge problem lately has been the governments sweeping up the meta data. So while your message may go through the system encrypted with this phone it's still going to leave a plain trail for everyone to see.
And placing the servers in Switzerland doesn't fill me with confidence for keeping the data safe either. They certainly caved pretty easily recently when it came to banking information so how fast is the government going to fold when the US wants the information to find terrorists and child molesters instead of tax cheats.
If Phil Zimmerman were involved in it I'd trust the security of the phone, it's just you don't just purchase one, but for everybody you call as well. One ain't going to do you any good.
I saw "Zimmerman" and "black" in the headline and I instantly thought a dreadful "Oh not this again!"
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Exactly. Even if everything on the phone is encrypted, the fact that you made a phone call is still noted (it's "metadata"!). Just like how everyone says "encrypt everything" are missing the point - IP packets can be logged (metadata), as can email headers (more metadata).
Of course, if you want to hide, another thing to do is not make it obvious - if everyone around you is making calls "in the clear", and your call is encrypted, well, that just draws unnecessary attention.
Given that silent circle has offices in the united states i can't see how anyone can trust its security.
seems to me if you wanted to make a secure device you would ensure to work with companies that can't be influenced by the USA
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the technology, I think.
The government can use MIB on the rooftops with parabolics, this phone doesn't and can't protect you from their minions.
"Evil people" avoid detection by using disposable phones and in-group jargon to avoid detection - they simply don't need or want this technology. They already buy cheaper, low profile generic phones with cash and just throw them away if they get known.
But this technology prevents the Sun from printing your conversation with the sexy nanny on page one. It prevents your neighbor from listening to your calls to your bookie on his scanner or baby monitor, too. Get it now? It's a big market segment... people who want a little privacy from nosy neighbors and service providers.
They have to have an indicator somewhere saying they have not allowed any government access. Since it's their phones, maybe broadcast the fact of no-contact every day to all phones, and have the phones alert when they haven't received the notice.
Also, may want to to hash the binaries at their web site and make it available as a web service, and have a program to hash binaries for that version on the phone and check online. Make it SSL with certificates to avoid spoofing. This way, people can know if their individual phones may have been compromised.
I dunno about voice calls, but messaging, at least, can be Torified, and that would be a much tougher nut to crack.
If device security and privacy came down to just the OS, then Android could be secured by a group of like minded individuals. The problem isn't the OS but the hardware and the firmware that drives it. Android's radio image is proprietary and out of public view. This means there are going to be undetectable processes running on your phone regardless of what OS you load. So unless these guys are building their own chips and writing their own firmware, how can they guarantee privacy?
Aren't cell phones *required* to provide as much location data as possible for emergency services and the like?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
http://www.oneluckyelephant.com
Layer one and two are the problem. Tor helps with layer 3 and 4. Your cell phone radio (layer one) has to give identifying information to the cell tower so the cell tower can authenticate it and link it to the network (layer 2). This is done continuously while the cell radio in the phone is on through the command channel. It's constantly checking in with all the cell towers within range so it can be determined which cell is the best for data connections and handing off to the optimal tower. So regardless of if and/or what your doing data wise they can triangulate based on the cell towers your phone is talking to and get a reasonable close location. Text messages also go through the command channel rather than a data channel explaining why you can often send a text message even when you can't get a call through.
Who is John Galt?
I think Tor is TCP only, so SIP is pretty much out of the question. Asterisk could work with IAX, Skype might work too.
Latency will be an issue. If it remains consistent thought you can get away with over 1 second of latency on a voice call - not much different than a call routed via satellite.
If latency fluctuates widely then jitter may become a problem. You'd need to compensate for that too. Jitter and high overall latency don't make for a good calling experience. I could see latency going above 2 seconds to compensate and that will not be great for an interactive phone call.
You can run all of your crypto operations on a different processor than the one running the radio since it can be assumed that it is compromised. For the really paranoid, an FPGA based processor can be used to guard against compromised ASICs entering the supply chain. If you transmit everything through VOIP rather than the normal voice channel then you can isolate the phone from any compromises in the phone network beyond SIM tracking.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Yes, obviously. It can be surmised from the title of my post that the problem isn't the telco knowing where you're connecting, but that they're perfectly happy to collect and turn over that information to government agencies without a proper warrant.
Given that the NSA (and doubtless others) intercepts of packages, how the hell do you obtain one of these without the real risk of it being tampered with before the sacred unboxing?
Another candidate for my next phone, and one of the few where "privacy" was ever a consideration in its design. If I do buy one I'll have to make it hard to trace it back to me, I'm trying to stay off the Naughty List if I'm not already on it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
unless the phone contacts first to wifi, then to other blackphones nearby forming a mesh network (that can be possible, but initially unlikely, due to low popularity of blackphone), then finally to some of available celltowers (not necessarily the one with strongest signal).
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
And you're added to the "list".
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This sounds like a pitch for a replacement to Good Technology or BlackBerry BES or MobileIron but tied to a single Android phone. I mean the headline says it's a secure phone but it looks like it will require Silent Circle as the communication go between. You can do that now on Android, BB 10, and iOS with BES 10. No special version of Android needed. Hate on BlackBerry all you want but they know security.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
No, not terrorists or drug smugglers or other ne'er do wells.
The target market is politicians, sheriffs departments, lobbyists, corporations, bankers and sundry others who worry about their dodgy dealings coming to light.
All your ghosts are just false positives.
You would probably want I2P instead of Tor (which was built only for browsing over TCP). I2P handles UDP-like traffic just fine, and is more resistant to compromise because its designed to safely distribute re/routing among all users. Its also pretty easy to adjust the number of relay hops, like trading anonymity/latency on a sliding scale.
Incidentally, the secret police haven't visited my hoa jlk -]=6y\ 9 90u[5y-gfdl;n;vzo8j......
[CONNECTION LOST]
The tough black mineral that won't cop out when the heat's all about.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
So what do you do when the grim-looking man with the black robe and no sense of humor orders that no such measures be employed on your website (i.e., don't kill the canary)? Go to jail just as if you'd refused to comply with the MIB, or give the world a false sense of security not by saying nothing about government oversight but by actively keeping the indicator (HTML tag?) in place. Your call
Oh, incidentally - CONTROL has agents ready to take over the administration and operation of your website should you prove uncooperative. Max and Hieme will see to it that the canary tags stay right where they belong, while the nice people with Federal Corrections see to it that you stay right where you belong.
Encryption doesn't do you any good. Have you forgotten about the analog hole? I'm sure the wonderful folks at NSA haven't.
Fully open source software would be a good *start*. It reduces the number of private parties you are forced to trust down to the hardware OEMs... and with clever enough architecture you can even keep hostile components at bay if your core processor is trusted.
But, eventually, the open source dynamic must be expressed in the hardware in order for multifarious communities of experts and users to develop a genuine trust relationship a smartphone, PC, etc. After 2013, there is no turning back from that eventual requirement. It may not show up on the roadmaps of 99% of most FOSS projects, but for many of them the hardware aspect will be hanging somewhere on their horizon.
Sound security isn't based on trusting a name. Show us the source if you expect to be trusted. I don't understand how Zimmerman still doesn't get that.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Airports, Flea markets, etc. It's brain dead easy to get a GSM prepaid and activated SIM in the usa without giving any information out.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Guess it's a matter of "know your audience." :/
But I never once thought of Bob Dylan.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
And if they have a microphone with a parabolic dish, they can hear it directly. And if they are standing next to you they can hear you outright. At some point you have to live life. If your paranoia extends that far, may as well never leave the house.
Sound security isn't based on trusting a name. Show us the source if you expect to be trusted. I don't understand how Zimmerman still doesn't get that.
Phil Zimmerman fought back as best he could, coming out with updates to PGP, as they kept charging him with something for years until one day they dropped all charges. Now MIT where you downloaded PGP from, I don't. I've still got PGP 2.6.2 g which was released years before MIT sold out to NSA.
If you have to trust someone for me it would be Phil Zimmerman, just as I do (cough) Google.
There may be a flaw in my thinking :} but it's that or just quit the Internet, using a phone, or filling out forms.
The backdoors mentioned is old news and due to MIT. Now I don't trust cloud storage ( “Swiss cloud”).