Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Documents Show How Well NSA Codebreakers Can Pry
Der Spiegel has published today an excellent summary of what some of Edward Snowden's revelations show about the difficulty (or, generally, ease) with which the NSA and collaborating intelligence services can track, decrypt, and correlate different means of online communication. An interesting slice: The NSA and its allies routinely intercept [HTTPS] connections -- by the millions. According to an NSA document, the agency intended to crack 10 million intercepted https connections a day by late 2012. The intelligence services are particularly interested in the moment when a user types his or her password. By the end of 2012, the system was supposed to be able to "detect the presence of at least 100 password based encryption applications" in each instance some 20,000 times a month.
For its part, Britain's GCHQ collects information about encryption using the TLS and SSL protocols -- the protocols https connections are encrypted with -- in a database called "FLYING PIG." The British spies produce weekly "trends reports" to catalog which services use the most SSL connections and save details about those connections. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo and Apple's iCloud service top the charts, and the number of catalogued SSL connections for one week is in the many billions -- for the top 40 sites alone. ...
The NSA also has a program with which it claims it can sometimes decrypt the Secure Shell protocol (SSH). This is typically used by systems administrators to log into employees' computers remotely, largely for use in the infrastructure of businesses, core Internet routers and other similarly important systems. The NSA combines the data collected in this manner with other information to leverage access to important systems of interest.
this is truly disgusting
Some people care, and you should care, since the information can and will be used to your detriment any time there is profit in it.
Snowden did us a favor. We owe him one in return.
Bring Snowden Home
Sign it.
Before we all get too hysterical, from the article itself:
In other words, the NSA, GCHQ and other intelligence services are probably only able to crack badly configured or unpatched and badly out of date systems. That doesn't stop them from using out of band vulnerabilities like hacking into someone's PC or forcing some online service to open up the decrypted data, but it seems likely that if you have a well-managed cert chain and your systems are kept up to date and patched, the odds of anyone, government or otherwise, busting into your encrypted data seems pretty low.
My big fear out of all this isn't the unlikely hacking of mainstream encryption schemes, but rather that those that do use encryption may end up being targets of other methods; like malware, to get at their critical data.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So that if anyone becomes a threat, it's easy to find a law they've broken, something embarrassing about them, or whatever. For most people, it is of no consequence. But for the very few who try to rock the status quo, this'll ensure they can't.
Richelieu said, "Give me six lines written by an honest man, and I will find something in it with which to hang him." Well, this just makes sure that the six lines have been collected in advance.
#1 financial information
#2 any idea they want to steal
#3 retroactive imprisonment, yeah it's not a crime today but tomorrow it is and they have all the evidence.
Remember who they share this info with.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It's time to stop sending keys using dumb methods. Time to start generating keys and physically swapping/installing them.
I doubt there is any readily available encryption that can protect you at this point.
No, there isn't. I've been saying that for years (to no effect of course), and the entire subject has become tiresome, aside from the object of cracking theirs :-)
Privacy is a fantasy. Everything going through their wire is being recorded.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Unfortunately these days not having a FB account means you are missing out in your social life.
No, it doesn't. For instance, you could always hang out with people not dumb enough to use Facebook, or reject 'social' nonsense. Or, you know, actually hang out with people if for some reason you actually want to be a social tool.
What makes you think they haven't broken the encryption, what makes you think they don't have full access to all certificates, what makes you think you can trust anything.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The authenticity of host '...' can't be established. RSA key fingerprint is .... Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
That's ssh letting you know that a man-in-the-middle attack could be successfully launched at you, and decrypt all your communication.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Maybe live thousands miles away from your friends and family. Maybe your friends and family do not share the same principles like you do.
Who gives a shit what they do? You think being "social" is about reading petty nonsense that they post online, and perhaps responding? I don't think that's socialization at all. If I was a "social" person, I would just do it the old fashioned way: Find some decent people to hang out with in real life. If my family lived too far away, too fucking bad; I don't need to know about them. Maybe you could even occasionally use something called a phone or send a letter. No, that's simply impossible; you need to know every thought that pops into their heads.
Like it or not social networking is an amazing way to keep in touch and follow peoples life.
That's worthless, especially for actual nerds. And all you'll get is useless information.
It seems that too many people readily sacrifice everything for convenience.
If the encryption is properly implemented, I'd say it is highly unlikely that they will crack it any time soon.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh, shut up already. Not everyone is a 45-year-old neckbeard troll living in their mom's basement with greasy Doritos hands and Mountain Dew stains on their shirts. I know and like my friends since before they joined Facebook. It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website. Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on /.
Facebook allows us to communicate on some aspects of our lives, perhaps today most commonly through sharing pictures, much as people used to do with postcards and snail mail. It isn't meant to replace face-to-face conversations. There may be something to be said about people who exclusively rely on Facebook, or who share TMI. But instead of ranting aimlessly like an old fart, I just unsubscribe to their feed.
Not everyone can afford or is willing to end friendships based on social network memberships. Facebook's success in particular and the emergence of so many networks in general are evidences to that. Your dogmatic view on social relationships is neither correct nor necessary nor relevant nor required.
Unfortunately these days not having a FB account means you are missing out in your social life. It has become the de facto for keeping in touch with friends and family.
The above is utter bullshit.
I have friends in five different countries and none of us use Facebook.
I maintain contact with my family using communications which have nothing
to do with Facebook.
Not everyone is as stupid as you so obviously are ( making blanket statements
which claim that Facebook is somehow necessary for having a social life is proof
of your stupidity ).
You sound like a real joy to spend time with.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles. That's just a fact. Maybe having principles isn't popular, but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
#1 financial information
#2 any idea they want to steal
#3 retroactive imprisonment, yeah it's not a crime today but tomorrow it is and they have all the evidence.
Remember who they share this info with.
That is actually just the start. I'll be happy to give some more examples:
1: A DA going on a fishing expedition. That data, plus parallel construction, plus civil asset forfeiture ensures that they will have a packed jail and prison system, ensuring the campaign donations from private prison corporations keep on coming. Remember: 48 states have signed an agreement with Corrections Corporations of America to keep their jails at 90% bed space or else face fines hourly.
2: Lawsuits. People may have forgotten the MPAA and RIAA lawsuits, suing people for millions. It wouldn't take much for copyright law to be amended, forcing people to have to "prove" ownership of IP, just as businesses have to cough up proof when the BSA guy comes around, or else the BSA guy will be back with the constable and lawyers with a motion of discovery. Even the mention of "hey, dude, listen to this band!" that is logged, may be enough to get a IP infringement lawsuit going. Don't forget libel and slander lawsuits. It wouldn't take much for a lawyer to go through, say Slashdot's postings, and file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits on anyone bashing Sony.
3: Other country's laws. People don't realize it in the US that Thailand's lese majeste laws apply here? Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties. Same with Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In theory, someone handing out events for their pagan festival or church bulletins can be shipped over there to be executed, due to violating Islamic sharia laws. Privacy is important, since it isn't just domestic LEOs, but LEOs of foreign countries who can press charges and have US citizens answer for them. Right now, it tends not to be enforced, but the laws are on the books, and the pastor who was televised burning a Koran might find himself in Riyadh facing an imam and a crowd with rocks and a can of gasoline.
4: Laws created by treaties. The gun nuts fear the UN gun ban treaty that went into in effect last Christmas Eve. It wasn't ratified in the US... but that can change, and even though it didn't affect gun sales inside the US... it had a clause saying that UN could act as an enforcement agency within the US, operating independently from other LEOs. Now, think about this a minute. A law enforcement group with the power to use deadly force and enforce laws that were never put on the books by domestic lawmakers, with no way to contest their decisions. It might be something 3 percenters talk about now on talk radio... but do people remember how close ACTA came to being passed? It wouldn't be surprising to see another law like this come on the books under "anti-hacking statues" that would allow the UN to detain "hackers" under their own law, and under their own opinion.
5: Ex wifes/husbands. An acquaintance of mine lives in California, had a bad marriage, with the wife divorcing him for someone richer. Well, she had a good attorney (courtesy her new BF), and got a pretty insane alimony settlement. Well, the husband was out of work at the time, couldn't pay the payments... so the judge tossed him in for nonpayment for six months. He got out after that, two years later, was back in (as in California, unemployment isn't a good enough reason to not pay alimony costs.) Well, this shit went on for about two years, until this guy, once he got released, booked it to Mexico. Now, the ex wife is offering a bounty for anyone to find him and bring him to "justice". Not that she needs the money, but just out of pure malice. Without privacy, people who just had a bad relationship with a sadistic other can be killed.
6: Insurance companies. I've read cases on Slashdot where people have walked into a humidor at a Spec's, someone takes a
Oh, shut up already.
No. Facebook is an awful company and no one should deal with them. Giving your information to such a company only ensures it will be abused.
It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website.
You don't need to ditch them, but at least don't follow them in getting a Facebook account unless you want to join them in being unprincipled ignoramuses who sacrifice massive amounts of privacy for convenience.
Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on /.
Is Slashdot evil like Facebook? No. Facebook is designed to violate people's privacy and sell information to advertisers.
The company I work for asks me to change my password every month, so I am safe. Right?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
... but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
LOL what?
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population. You must be a very lonely boy.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
It's not that we're not tempted, it's that the cost benefit analysis of a scorched earth policy sucks donkey balls. No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
Liberty.
those protocols or programs have a major rating (major according to the article means impossible unless someone made a mistake or malware was used)
OTR
TrueCrypt
those protocols have a catastrophic rating (catastrophic for the NSA is a win for US)
ZRTP
PGP
about the SSH thing, it all depend on the cipher used, if you use ssh with a MD2-DES cypher expect it to be decrypted
if you use something like twofish or salsa20 your probably quite secure
If you don't like FB there are alternatives out there. Just saying...
It is not in the best interest of Mr. Snowden to re-enter the United States. He can be at his most effective and most free outside of U.S. possessions and territories, and any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S. Even with a presidential pardon his life Stateside would not be easy.
On the other hand, if Bill Clinton can pardon Mark Rich, then Barack Obama can pardon Edward Snowden. It would be a great litmus test for the 2016 presidential candidates.
"Facebook will wither into insignificance" only to be replaced by something else. It's up to us to make sure it will be replace by something "better".
The SSL protocol is broken. Manipulating servers into lowering their cryptographic standard is possible through this. However: with properly encrypted data it's downright impossible for anyone including the NSA to decrypt it. This is not the 70's anymore. Academia is very much on par with the intelligence community when it comes to crypto. Too many big interests involved now. And they can't make a dent in AES-128. Fortunately mathematics is a-political.
Other country's laws. People don't realize it in the US that Thailand's lese majeste laws apply here? Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties.
Extradition almost exclusively applies to to laws in other countries that would be also be considered criminal in the USA. Kill someone in Thailand, well murder is criminal in the USA, so they'll extradite you. Slander someone, well, that's not criminal in the USA, so you're safe. The USA also will not extradite if they think the punishment may be considered "extreme".
That's just a fact.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. That's an opinion.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles.
"Actual" principles being the principles that you hold, and no one else's principles being "actual", No True Scotsman style.
Social networking is an option for socialization. Almost no one uses it to the exclusion of more traditional social activities, although I agree that Internet socialization is a mere shadow of in-person socialization.
You've either got an oversimplified black-and-white view of the world, or you're just getting a kick out of trolling everyone. Either way, I hope it works out for you. The way I'm living my life is working out wonderfully for me, in spite of our differences of opinion.
You can continue being all "stop liking what I don't like!" I'm gonna get back to talking to my friends and spending time with my wife.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The article mentions:
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
No, not really. Especially considering the article.
I'm British but I live in Spain. Should I not know what is going on in the lives of people in the UK? Or get them to e-mail me everything? Or convince them all to sign up for a service I consider to be 'better'?
To which degree? Providing a fake name, birthdate, and other information, blocking image tags, and posting untagged text information?
By even using Facebook, you grant their service legitimacy, and enable (albeit only slightly, but change has to start somewhere) their unethical behavior. You mention algorithms that Facebook uses to infer connections, which is yet another evil.
You are poorly informed.
About?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
Certificate Authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Old news virtually everyone here knows well.
Loss of Trust:
Information provided by Edward Snowden
Trust? What the fuck are you smoking???... The prior US administration LIED and started a goddamn war under completely false pretenses leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands displacing millions over the course of a decade...not a little privacy invasion or reading love letters...but grand fucking high crimes against humanity. A *DECADE* ago we found out about NSA collection of *ALL* domestic phone records.... As much as I love Ed Snowden there was no trust remaining to lose when he spoke out.
I trust the Internet was insecure and all kinds of TLA's and assorted bad actors were exploiting to the hilt from the very start. Security is our responsibility...nobody else's.
Those are singular examples to the issues I spoke of, there are many, many more.
In addition, only a small percentage of data has been released to the public from the "Snowden Cache", if it was all released maybe people like you would finally STFU
The only thing you have enumerated was bullshit about SSL and HSTS which were factually incorrect and demonstrate your lack of knowledge of underlying technology. It shows you can read technical articles without having a firm grasp of fundamentals. The rest is just bloviating about enumeration of unspecified this and that's ...you have nothing specific to say.
If anything what Snowden told us is that the systems we *know* are secure really are a PITA even for the NSA to crack...Snowden himself said as much during a hearing he remotely participated in from Russia and in several televised interviews with reporters earlier in the year.
The underlying point remains running around yelling "How can you trust anything" ... is not helpful in any way... It spreads FUD and makes no positive contribution.
While there will be a certain amount of collateral damage, Facebook users ultimately control what they post, and that is where they can manage what they reveal in on-line surveillance.
But they don't ultimately control what Facebook does with the data they have, which is to use it in privacy-violating ways. You shouldn't legitimize an unethical service by using it.
Admittedly recent tracking methods linking Amazon purchases to Facebook feeds are getting really creepy, but it would be hard for the NSA to have anything suspicious about me considering I post pictures of my kids and a few inoffensive jokes (not that there is anything suspicious).
Are you under the delusion that they need anything "suspicious" to flag you? You can get in trouble just by making a joke or using sarcasm that the authorities don't understand. It's not only malice that you must watch out for, but incompetence too. In addition, if you happen to post anything disagreeable, they could flag you and conduct surveillance on you more closely. Better hope you don't make any 'mistakes' (including posting something considered taboo or possibly illegal).
You're correct in one sense, they aren't recording (storing) literally everything, of course you knew that and chose to nitpick a conversational error.
The data center is alleged to be able to process "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
I don't know what it is with people like you, you seem to want to argue over scraps of nothing, ignoring the real point.
I've discussed this sort of behavior with numerous people and they see it too, people like you and your type of thinking seem to be growing in number, this inability to do anything long term, to focus on the actual discussion, or read anything more than 145 characters.
You know as well as I do they aren't recording literally everything, they aren't recording that YouTube video you just watched, but they probably do know which one, and when, and from what IP, those sorts of details.
They have exabyte capacity at one data center, God knows how much more...
But you, you want to focus on the word "everything" to take it literally and they say "you're crazy" as though that invalidates the entire point I was trying to make.
Morons...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Actually, I've had a Facebook account for years and I use it regularly.
Of course I'm well aware that they sift through all of my information and try to resell it. But IMO, it's a pretty well understood trade, and one that I don't have a big problem with. The fact remains, Facebook will only have the information that I willingly provide by way of posting it up there or filling out fields on the site. And meanwhile, they're enabling ME to obtain information on all of my friends and other online connections too.
I don't share or say anything on FB that I'm not already comfortable sharing with other people, so it's not like huge secrets are being revealed. Things I do get out of Facebook include using local buy/sell/trade type groups that people have set up (no fees to post listings or fees owed to the site operator upon successful sales) and special interest groups, such as one for one of the cars I own.
I've also been able to keep in touch with a number of old friends who I probably wouldn't keep up with otherwise, after moving. (And let's face it... that's primarily because there's nothing critical or earth-shattering to be gained by keeping up with these people's daily lives when you don't even live in the same city as them anymore. But when it's free and as easy as checking in on FB, it makes for a mildly enjoyable way to kill some time while better preserving those old friendships. You never know when you're going to visit a place you used to live, and it's nice not to do so without having to wonder if those people you "used to know" still live at the same address, etc.)
If Facebook does nothing for you, great. Don't use it! But I see so much bashing of the site that I think is unwarranted. Did FB ever so much as beg for donations from you to keep it operational, or limit how much time you could spend using it each month or day? Nope! And yet, you're even free to create new groups (even closed, private ones) without owing a dime. IMO, there's a lot of value to be wrung out of using the site -- despite knowing they're trying to cull value out of the content you put out there.
> Thanks for the list. This is a good counter to the people who say "if you aren't doing something wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Here's an example everybody can understand: That time when the FBI tried to blackmail MLK Jr with sex tapes they secretly recorded of him. Just because most of us are unimportant in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean the occasional person who can change society won't be victimized in order to hurt us all.
I see a lot of similar comments, but I liked yours so I'll address the themes here.
First, facebook is not the only problem. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. The list of technology companies that sucker their users are as long as the list of technology companies that sell 'the cloud'. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
Worse than this, the evil is not marketing. The real evil is the secret pact between the tech companies and the government's monopoly on the initiation of force, for the benefit of a minority of oligarch families. The elite's technology branch
The real evil is the patriot act, the capture of government, the capture of industry and the subversion of the constitution. All tech companies are a part of this, most willingly, some unwillingly or unwittingly and the only honest ones are forced to shut down.
The capture of the government and industry is nothing new, but it reached tremendous success in the 20th century. First they captured the congress and the judicial, then the executive, then the monetary system and then they really captured the executive with the JFK assassination. Don't forget where some of the recent oligarchs originated.
Do you see it yet? if you rule out the vast majority of the population based on internet usage, you're out of whack. Firstly because that's not the real problem.
Also, you might have MUCH MORE in common with someone who uises fb daily than on someone who doesn't, based on your OTHER principles and virtues.
It's like saying, "I'll only hang out with people who are atheists.". That's not enough. In 10 years time that could still be all you have in common. Or they could change their minds.
Finally I would just like to remind people that not only is the USA responsible for millions of deaths around the world, it now tortures people.
If you refuse to interact with people who support these acts, how will you ever change their minds?
Oh and just for good measure. A fucking surveillance blimp. The internet of things is coming to spy on you from the sky 24/7. Is it not enough that you've captured the mass media? If you were to only hang out with people who share all your principles or most important beliefs, you would not hang out with anyone.
Furthermore, having intelligent debate with people who disagree with you (and are virtuous enough to have an intelligent debate) is the only way that you can make any sort of real progress in self discovery and discovery of the universe. If your ideas an principles are not challenged, if you don't go back to first principles to figure what what's really important, if you don't re-assess your beliefs in the face of new evidence, you'll never improve.
Liberty.
You should be allowed to care
What does he need a pardon for? He's done nothing to require one. What he needs is a big shiny medal - the sort that says "you done a good thing there, thank you" and a great big "anybody touches him is in a whole truckload of trouble" award.
I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last few months from commenters on various forums to first make a point opposing the previous comment then top it off with a personal dig. I foresee an interesting 2015 as people spend more time throwing insults, epithets and derision than actually making a point.
My point about not needing a pardon is that Snowden didn't give information to the enemy - he told the world. According to the way the intelligence & military communities are portrayed in the released documents that means *us*. All of us, be it communist, capitalist or just plain don't give a fuck. I don't consider myself an enemy and I'm pretty sure you aren't as you've done me no harm. The real enemy is the intelligence & military community. Remove them - and their paranoia and lust for secrecy & big shiny toys that go boom - from the scene (and the religious zealots, etc, etc) and the world might be a slightly better place.
And I'm teetotal. What's your excuse?