Export-level Encryption Proves Insufficient 517
rossjudson writes: "The Independent is running an article about the shoe bomber terrorist. The interesting bit for Slashdot readers is at the bottom -- apparently the 40-bit encryption in the export version of Windows 2000 was cracked by a set of computers using a brute force method. So let's confront the question: Should the US prohibit the export of high-encryption software? Here is a case where the default values (40 bit) clearly helped recover valuable information from a system." There's another article in New Scientist focusing on the encryption issue.
I don't get this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now for this guy who happened to have 40-bit encryption installed by default, he's just a moron then. He obviously didn't know that 40-bit was easily breakable, he didn't care, or didn't take the 10 seconds to download and enable 128 bit on his computer.
I chalk it up to stupidy on his part for not simply looking for the stronger encryption (it's out there, and easily obtainable).
Now for the conspiracy theorists: He wasn't ACTUALLY using 40-bit encryption, that's what they want you to think. He was using the full 128-bit encryption, but the NSA can easily crack that level now due to the computer power they have. They simply tell the media it's 40-bit just so that we don't come up and develop something even more powerful which would take them longer to decrypt.
Shoe bomber = idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Conclusion: We know the guy is an idiot... what would happen if a SMART person tried this?
Psss, don't tell anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering how much planning and communication had to take place for 9/11 to happen, we only have a video tape and a few files? Sounds like the low tech method works better for keeping things under raps. Is a computer isn't going to commit suicide if the FBI catches it (well I suppose you could boobie trap it). A terrorist on the otherhand can mislead, or commit suicide. The only thing weak encryption does is make businesses more vulnerable to government snooping and crackers. Plus the government can use things like a warrant to get access. Oh I forgot they hate having to ask judges for warrants and answering questions like "do you have sufficient proof or cause?"
Faulty analysis... (Score:3, Interesting)
Who needs it? Well, businesses, anybody with information they want to keep private, anybody with information they don't want their bosses or employers to know, anybody who keeps secret information or documents that they don't want wife/children/family/parents to pry into, people with mistresses, and yes, perhaps some really bad people like terrorists.
The fact that one already acknowledged to be EXTREMELY incompetent terrorist who failed to successfully ignite his shoe bomb (which was packed with high explosive) ALSO failed to properly obtain a high security add-on for his computer is evidence of exactly one thing: his incompetence. Not of the effectiveness of export restrictions. So while I agree that perhaps investigators obtained useful information because he was using weak encryption, and that is fortunate, export restrictions would not prevent a determined, modestly informed criminal or criminal organization from using real crypto (as opposed to 40 bit crippleware).
You could argue that a really determined criminal could take down a plane too. That's probably true, but we're talking about levels of effort on different orders of magnitude here. One involves 5 minutes and a few clicks on a computer. The other involves serious tactical planning to commit a terrorist act. Conclusion: crypto export restrictions have never protected us from a competent criminal, and they still cause economic harm by restricting free trade of goods that support proper encryption by US companies, giving unfair advantage to foreign companies.
If only the US would ban export of weapons (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Um, duh? (Score:3, Interesting)
The point here is that making a law against a minor offence (using crypto) in order to protect against a bigger offence (terrorism) is pointless, as the larger offence is:
- already against the law
- punishable by much higher terms than the minor offence
Thus, somebody who is already determined to commit the larger offence wouldn't be bothered at all that in the process he is also committing one minor offence or two.The same article could be used to make the point that we should make a law that makes it mandatory that you take off your shoes when going to the loo... After all, the only way the attempted attentat was stopped was because Reid tried to light his shoes in the cabin, rather than in the toilet, and thus could be stopped by crew & fellow travellers.
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:3, Interesting)
> On the other hand, these laws do cause a considerable hassle for law-abiding organizations that wish to add security to their products. Therefore I believe that these laws are detrimental and should be repealed immediately.
Citizens want to have secure communications; governments don't want citizens to have secure communications. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground.
But yeah, the notion of stopping the proliferation of strong encryption by means of export restrictions is ludicrous. What were the feds thinking? (Or rather, why weren't they thinking?) Ordinarily I would suspect an ulterior motive, but I've never been able to divine one in this case.
French version same - here's why (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, it was done this way becaue th eFrench did NOT want the US Govt. to have an easier time decrypting the documens than did the French Govt. so they required a really poor encryption be used in Notes. Once the US Govt. dropped it's export restricitons the French Govt. lifted this requirement since this placed us all on a "level" playing field. One of the point revisions of R5 brought nearly all of the versions together except the French I THINK. Due to the extreme crippling they had to do the French may have had their own upgrade or have been forced to reissue certs and IDs - I'm fuzzy on this. I believe if you spend some time on the Notes site you'll find your answer.
On a plus note - Lotus has determined that 128 just isn't good enough. They mentioned plans to upgrade the crypto at Lotusphere last year but it probably won't be there till RNext goes gold. If there's one product out there that actually seems to care about security and was WAY ahead of the certificate thing it's Notes. And no, they aren't perfect...
To my surprise, the article is not a troll. ;-) (Score:5, Interesting)
There I was, foaming at the mouth and ready to launch into a "how can you be so stupid?" diatribe. How can you keep encryption out of the hands of Bad People by denying it to Good People? In general terms, writing laws aimed at criminals is futile, because the criminals (by definition!) won't care about the law and will use whatever technology or methods they want. Nobody would be stupid or lazy or overconfident enough to use the lame default encryption on an export system, surely?
And then I read the article.
The al-Qa'ida machine was indeed running 40 bit encryption. It's hard to credit, but it really does appear that they simply were too stupid or too lazy or overconfident to upgrade the default lame-o-crypt settings. It's astonishing, especially compared to the planning that they put into September 11th, but there it is.
No, I don't think we should try and ban strong encryption. There are plenty of Good People who can make use of it (think Tibet), and any competent and determined Bad People can get it anyway. But these opponents just demonstrated clearly that while they were determined, they were not competent, and that changes my mind, just a litle.
I can see an argument for encouraging developers (Microsoft, MacOS and yes, Linux hackers) to supply 40 bit security by default on all consumer systems. Aunt Jemima doesn't need strong encryption, you and I probably don't need it. I wouldn't want strong encryption to be limited, but honest to god, I'd be flattered if anyone ever thought it was worth breaking even 40 bits worth on anything that I produced. I want the option to upgrade to be there, but I feel no particular need to use it, and here's the kicker: the less we kick up a fuss about it - and just quietly download the strong stuff ourselves without demanding that Aunt Jemina have it by default - the better.
I can't help but think that the more noise we make about the distinctions between low and high encryption, the more likely it is that even stupid, lazy, overconfident terrorists will perk up their ears and ask "Hey! Is this something we should be thinking about? Maybe we should send Achmed out to buy a copy of 'Security For Dummies'." Because they clearly are dummies, and I'm quite happy for them to stay that way, thanks all the same.
Re:40 bits is useless (Score:2, Interesting)
It took at most 2 days with ~1000 $US worth of gear to find the key.
I heard just the other day that a high-school math prof from Luxembourg (Europe) developed a new theoretical attack (and implemented it) against DES, that was able to break DES in a couple of minutes on a normal Mac - his method is somewhere between AI and your normal statistics math and truly new, IIRC. Unfortunately, I didn't find any link now, but I'll try to find more info, even if it means finding the newspaper article and scanning it...
Re:Shoe bomber != idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the encryption - duh! READ the article, it was on a HD that didn't belong to him. The report was a debriefing of the guy written by a debriefer. He had NO control over what encryption was done on it - it could've been skywritten from an airplane for all the "control" he had over it. The mistake in this case was NOT his, it was some other moron. (sigh)
The Diamond Age (Score:3, Interesting)
Something that runs parallel to this is the world of Neil Stephenson's "The Diamond Age." It goes something like once there exists a secure and anonymous network for individuals to exhange information and transactions, the current world order collapses. Why? Because governments can no longer track the flow of money.
Won't Stop The Terrorists - Missing The Point (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine that most decryption is done in bulk, sifting through for the occasional terrorist tidbit. Even if some terrorists do use 128+ bit, it frees up a hell of a lot of resources if the majority of the load is still easily crackable. It also allows the authorities to montior more different sources so now they can add minor suspects rather than having to focus on the major ones.
So, yes, for the most sophisticated criminals, export laws don't make a difference. For the total bulk work that the NSA etc. do, reducing the number of people with strong crypto makes their lives easier.