Jump to content

The civil war on Americans: Bullrun NSA program breaks encryption

G+_John Blanton (JohnnyF3V

By G+_John Blanton (JohnnyF3V,
in This is TWiT

 Share

Recommended Posts

G+_John Blanton (JohnnyF3V Newbie

G+_John Blanton (JohnnyF3V

Posted
Posted
nsa.png

Originally shared by Max Huijgen

 

The civil war on Americans: Bullrun NSA program breaks encryption

 One of, or probably the most revealing insight to come out of the Snowden material: the NSA is much further in decrypting than hitherto was assumed by the cryptographic community.

 

The 'Bullrun' program, a reference to an important battle during the civil war in the US, seems to have obtained access to most encrypted services. Partly by getting certificates or access to the unencrypted storage at providers, but also by an apparently successful attempt to weaken public encryption standards.

 

The article in the New York Times is ominous, but unfortunately devoid of technical details. It's very difficult to assess if the NYT misinterpreted or that they just complied with the request of the intelligence services to keep all details out of the article. Edit: the Guardian reports on it as well. See links below.

 

The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show.

 

Many users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.

 

There have been a few signs like Google going for Perfect forward Secrecy, a rare implementation which I suspected was triggered by actual knowledge of broken security. Edward Snowden told in an interview that properly encrypted email was still reliable but SSL and VPN seem to be broken or compromised somehow.

 

Instead of drawing a conclusion I urge you to read and discuss the article. This is important news and it needs to be digested as careful as possible.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G+_Aaron Kimmins Newbie

G+_Aaron Kimmins

Posted
Posted

Plus, if you're going to start the whole freedom of speech thing, don't tell people to leave because they're standing up for their rights. You're the loser letting the gov't take away your rights. If you don't want the rights afforded to you by the CONSTITUTION then you need to leave this country immediately. Lou Gagliardi

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G+_Aaron Kimmins Newbie

G+_Aaron Kimmins

Posted
Posted

Lou Gagliardi first, the constitution was written around 1780. Second we, as in America, invented the internet in the 1960's. The constitution was already here. That gives us the rights your trying to show. Like that freedom of speech you tried to quote. Freedom is not a one way street. You do not get that freedom while others have to remain silent. You should really pay attention in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G+_Damian Mongru Newbie

G+_Damian Mongru

Posted
Posted

Wayne Brander   The article you link to is a bit odd, I'm generally against the 'if you have nothing to hide...' advocates, but the article doesn't seem to have a compelling reason why this is wrong.

Firstly, the 'you're probably doing something wrong' argument. He even says 'criminal laws are crazy'. Surely we should look to repeal these 'crazy laws'. Also, has anyone been convicted of having a 'lobster that is too large', and would this not cause a media outcry if someone was thrown in jail for something so trivial.

Secondly, it is right to remove anachronistic laws. These laws aren't changed because one person sent an email, they are a protesting movement which those in power cannot ignore. The author has invented a scenario, and then explained how it would effect the legal system.

The third issue is generally what will happen with 'big-data'. Which has too many pros and cons to mention here.

Finally, the 'claim that you shouldn't worry about overly broad surveillance, just because you might not be a target'. I think only the governments were using this argument - don't worry about it America, we're only looking at the foreigners'. No one believes that anymore.

 

It's not that I don't agree with the article in general, it's just that the arguments and examples used wouldn't persuade someone to change their point of view.

 

At the moment I am not sure what level of surveillance is appropriate. If there are clues and information in metadata, is it okay to use that? What about anything encrypted (court order?) How long should these messages be kept for? Why don't you trust the government - aren't they elected to serve you, and if they don't, do you need to change this? You are aware as many other nations as possible are trying to spy on your information, is this more or less troublesome than your own government reading your emails? Are the US government allowed to read my emails because I have an gmail account? Those above mentioning the (your) Constitution - how does that help people abroad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...