Slashdot Mirror


Why Crypto Backdoors Wouldn't Work

An anonymous reader writes: Your devices should come with a government backdoor. That's according to the heads of the FBI, NSA, and DHS. There are many objections, especially that backdoors add massive security risks.

Would backdoors even be effective, though? In a new writeup, a prominent Stanford security researcher argues that crypto backdoors "will not work." Walking step-by-step through a hypothetical backdoored Android, he argues that "in order to make secure apps just slightly more difficult for criminals to obtain, and just slightly less worthwhile for developers, the government would have to go to extraordinary lengths. In an arms race between cryptographic backdoors and secure apps, the United States would inevitably lose."

9 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. The 90s all over again... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seem to recall that we went through this in the mid to late 90s, where the government insisted any use of strong cryptography should as a matter of law, have a backdoor for the government. Then suddenly they dropped it, and all of us paying attention knew they got their way by some other means. Now post-Snowden, I guess we know what that was, and they're back to beating this horse all over again.

    The answer should be no, with absolutely no further discussion.

  2. Snowden took out the phone batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Snowden insisted the journalists remove the battery from their phones and put the phones in the fridge.

    That pretty much tells you how useful 'encryption' on Android would be against back doors. None, if you can't protect your speech near the phone you can't protect the password.

  3. Since When... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...has the fact a program simply won't work deterred the Government from attempting it anyways?

  4. Encrypt More by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to me, everytime they talk about this kind of thing, it does exactly what I want. Raise crypto awareness. Keep trying guberment. The more you preach for backdoors, the more people you make aware of the usefulness of crypto. Streisand effect anyone?

  5. Re:It's about more than that by monkeyzoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Making strong crypto illegal would only affect those in the US's jurisdiction. It would not affect the most desirable targets (outside US jurisdiction) and would have a chilling effect on demand for US technology products.

  6. Re: It's about more than that by chromeronin799 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the even simpler argument. I'm not a U.S. Citizen. Why would I be happy the U.S. Has the ability to backdoor my app?

  7. Re:Car analogy by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But warrants are [whining voice]SOOOO HAAARD. You have to show probable cause and all that stuff. It's too much work.[/whining voice]

    Plus, [overly paranoid voice]in the time it takes to get a warrant, a criminal could enact another 9-11 or could destroy the evidence that they were planning that.[/overly paranoid voice].

    Those are the reasons why law enforcement needs access to stuff without a warrant. The whiny, paranoid reasons why.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  8. Re:It's about more than that by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Making strong crypto illegal would only affect those in the US's jurisdiction. It would not affect the most desirable targets (outside US jurisdiction) and would have a chilling effect on demand for US technology products.

    Theres already a chilling effect on demand for US technology products.

    I'd like to see a company in a privacy-respecting nation such as Netherlands to release some decent network hardware...

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  9. Re:It's about more than that by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just not technically feasible if there is any respect for liberty...

    *Ah, there's the rub, isn't it?*

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”