New Vista Random Numbers to Include NSA Backdoor?

Schneier is reporting that Microsoft has added the new Dual_EC-DRBG random-number generator to Vista SP1. This random-number generator is the same one discussed earlier that may have a secret NSA backdoor built into it.

Given the known problems of Dual_EC_DRBG

[morgan_greywolf]

Given the known problems of Dual_EC_DRBG, which, from the Bruce Schneier article, include the fact that's slow, that it's got an obvious backdoor, and that it was inexplicably pushed for the NSA for seemingly no reason, why would Microsoft add it to Vista SP1?

Now adding the algorithm itself isn't really a backdoor per se, because no one is forcing you to use that particular random number generator. But it is also interesting to note that this isn't the first time Microsoft has been accused of inserting backdoors for the CIA or the NSA. Of course, Microsoft vehemently denies such allegations, but I would assume that they would. Given what the telcos did for the NSA, would anyone be surprised if it really did come out that the NSA actually forced Microsoft to put backdoors in Office or Windows?

No surprise here

[Anonymous Coward]

No surprise, really. After all, Microsoft did this a long time ago (remember the whole "NSA KEY" fiasco?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY [wikipedia.org]

Is this "feature" back-ported to XP SP3, too?

[denis-The-menace]

Is this "feature" back-ported to XP SP3, too?
SP3 is supposed to have some of Vista's most useful features as well as all previous bug fixes.
Would a shame to ruin a good service pack that speeds up XP by 10%.

Re:From the article

[Smidge204]

It's not enabled by default ... until the next Automatic Update rolls around.

=Smidge=

Does anyone who uses Vista...

[gillbates]

Have any expectation of privacy or security in the first place?

IIRC, some of the key SCOTUS decisions regarding the Fourth Amendment have centered around a person's expectation of privacy. They've argued:

• That someone doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their garbage.
• That email doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy...
• That a person's car is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

That said, the government could persuasively argue that someone who runs Windows, especially Vista, has no expectation of privacy in the first place:

• More malware and trojans run on Windows than Mac and Linux combined. In fact, there are more viruses available for Windows than there are editors - even applications - for Linux.
• Microsoft has continued a trend of introducing software with gaping holes for that past 10 years. No OS vendor in the last decade has produced a less secure OS than Microsoft. Surely the user must be aware of this, and have accepted the risk.
• Users accept the Windows EULA, which, among other things, allows Microsoft to remotely check Windows for proper activation - so they already have given up their privacy to a corporation.

Now the sad thing is that this does come across as a troll, but sadly, it's true. And it needs to be addressed. For some reason, the /. crowd thinks it is acceptable that a majority of the population uses an OS which is horribly less secure than the ones we ourselves use (Linux, Macs, etc...). We're supposed to be the technical ones who have the solution to these problems, and yet, most /.ers just choose to blame the victim and whine about Microsoft being evil. Granted, we already know that.

Is it really acceptable that our collective rights are surrendered because a major corporation finds more profit in insufficient design and testing of its software? I realize that most of you loathe Windows, but unless we actually do something to fix the social barriers to the adoption of Linux, we can expect that, because Windows is so insecure, our government will be able to convince SCOTUS that a computer user has no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

It doesn't matter so much that this PRNG is insecure. A knowledgeable cryptographer isn't going to trust the OS for random numbers, anyway - unless it is in compliance with some standard to which their code must comply. What matters is that Vista is full of holes, and we're talking about a PRNG which no software of cryptographical consequence is going to use anyway.

Instead, we ought to worry that Windows itself is easily compromised by the government. That is the real problem. Why would you break the PRNG when you can rootkit even a fully patched Vista box with an email?.

Worth Noting

[Anonymous Coward]

The talk [cr.yp.to] referenced by Schneier in his essay [schneier.com] as being the one that publicly disclosed the backdoor was given by two Microsoft researchers. So all the "OMG micro$oft iz so stoopid" posts might be a bit .... misdirected.

Re:You might want to check your facts.

[DrNASA]

Lol - you know, I actually had a line about Babbage, but deleted it, figuring that there was no need to point out the distinction between what the op was referring to and what Babbage actually designed (but never created).

I think the argument could be made that Bell was in America when the telephone was invented - not conceived.
Regarding the lightbulb - toss up in my opinion. Edison built the first functional working model. Again, the difference between concept and function.

Point taken on the auto's, so I'll submit to Benz, but one also has to look at the timeline / functionality of Selden and the Duryea's vs. the first model of Benz.

Actually, the Internet is the one on the list that I had the most doubt about because there was a lot of work in England as well, even though we mostly recognize ArpaNet as the Internet's birth. Thanks for the reminder to never count on my memory ;)

Re:Given the known problems of Dual_EC_DRBG

[secPM_MS]

That is not good enough. The attack can be in the compiler or other tools in the build environment. Such attacks have been demonstrated. That is why I mentioned the CC issue. The evaluation laboratories have access to the source, have competent security staff, and are "trusted" by both the customer and the manufacturer to accurately represent what they have found.

For all the talk about closed source, a rather large number of customers, including numerous governments, has read access to the Windows Source code. Don't assume that only MS employees examine it. The number is far broader than is generally supposed.

Re:Fuck You AmeriKKKa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait another dead guy wants a chat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Benz [wikipedia.org] - says he invented the automobile.

But that's disputed. Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Marcus [wikipedia.org] started to construct cars a few years earlier. But since he was a jew, the nazis were keen to hide this fact and declared Benz the inventor. They even tried to destroy Marcus' car in the museum. (But the museum staff was quicker, and had already built a wall around it, so it does still exist today.)

Re:Really...

[hax0r_this]

What is the point of plugging the output of a secure random generator into a non-secure one? Why not just use the secure one?

Re:Given the known problems of Dual_EC_DRBG

[Burz]

Indeed, MS is being subjected to considerable criticsm in Vista and Server 2008 for overinvesting in security with respect to neat new features.

Certainly if you count the performance-killing DRM features as "security". Most of us here are talking about the users' security, not Hollywood's.

Of course, the presence of DRM itself throws their crypto incompetence into high relief.

The Secure Development Lifecycle process that was introduced a few years ago has a cryptographic portion that requires crypto usage to conform to reasonable standards...

I know of one MS systems architect who thinks that SSL is broken (but of course, no evidence is ever forthcoming). They are FUD-spewing charlatans, and you believe in them.

Do tell us more about Microsoft's reasonable "standards". Is it anything like what they are doing with kerberos or OOXML?

Re:OK, this is just stupid.

[letsief]

You're actually missing one of the funny parts of the review. Neils Ferguson, a researcher at Microsoft, is one of the people that found the potential security flaw. It was probably Microsoft's decision to implement the RBG that caused him to start looking at it.