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.
Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
It's like making gun ownership a crime to avoid criminals getting guns. Criminals will get them because they commit crimes. The only people without crypto/guns will be the people you don't have anything to worry about in the first place.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Lousy analogy.
Primary purpose of cryptography is to hide information. It's not destructive by nature. It has great benefits to corporations and individuals alike.
A gun's primary purpose is to inflict severe wounds. Most people will not reap the benefits of inflicting severe wounds.
The big issue is not what sane people, whether lawful or unlawful, will do with these items. The big question is what will the insane do.
Cryptography in the hands of the insane is highly unlikely to rob any more mothers of their children. Firearms, on the other hand, may well do so.
Gun control is much like control of any weapon. It's not about those who are sane, but those who go crazy. And last I checked, in the "Me first, I'm an individual" society, you weren't too good at spotting the real crazies.
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Closer analogy than you think.
Cryptography's purpose is to hide information. The user who generates and uses that information determines if the hidden information is used for good or evil.
A gun's purpose is to fling a mass accuratly in a particular direction with great speed. The user of the gun picks the target, be that target for good or evil.
Either device (crypto or firearm) in the hands of someone bent on evil can be used to further evil. Just as either device can be used by someone to do good.
Re:Yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah because prohibiting the export of this will prevent anyone evil from getting hold of it...
I think you've got the problem backwards here... The article describes how the export version which was being used by al'Queda was able to be decrypted, revealing valuable information. This is important, because it gives the regulations that prevent strong encryption from being exported worked. Thus, the people backing those laws now have something concrete to point to and say "hey look, terrorists used encryption, but because it was U.S. export grade encryption, we got them anyways!" One more excuse for politians to not withdraw the regulation.
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Amazingly a slashdot comment which made me suddenly stop and think about things I'd taken for granted in the past. You are right, in this case it *did* work. Doesn't invalidate my original point that it's really easily bypassed, but it looks like this did help to catch some stupid terrorists.
True (Score:5, Insightful)
What the crypto regulations really do is prevent most people in the USA from adopting it. None of the three-letter agencies want everyone encrypting their E-mail or network traffic by default. That simply wouldn't do -- if everyone did it, how would they know who actually has something to hide? So they make it a pain in the ass for software developers to incorporate it into their software and they make it a pain in the ass for most users (Who don't know to go to international sites where you don't have to fill out a form to download the software) to get it.
The irony is that now they're bitching because the network is so insecure and how a cyber-attack could bring down public utilities and banks and things. Well they're just reaping what they've sown. The network would have tended to cryptographic authentication and tighter security except for the artificial and fundamentally useless restrictions the federal government has put in place.
Re:Yeah (Score:2, Redundant)
The point is that it will make no difference to "evil" people but will annoy the law abiding majority.
cheer up (Score:2)
Cheer up
It coud be worse if the government lied to us
;-)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)
Sun Solaris for SPARC version 2.51 or later; AIX 4.2 or later; HPUX 10.20 or later; and of course Linux x86 Red Hat (RPM) 5.0 or later. To encypt mail they use something being developed on sourceforge [woo hoo] called Mailcrypt [sourceforge.net] . It does say on the Mailcrypt site that they now support both PGP and GnuPG. So now I am not sure of the difference between the two.
To really be safe... (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't matter because: (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer +
Low-level programming skills =
High Grade Encryption... Anywhere in the world.
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:2)
( the ability to send an CD-ROM containing the source of GnuPG & Co + a compiler) |
( Crypto Textbook (with one-time-pads in it) + a pen + some paper (>= 2 sheets)) =
High Grad Encryption
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:2)
I have never had an airport security or customs official check my laptop for anything other than explosives, nor look at my CDR's labeled with things like "backups Oct 2001" to see whether they have "munitions" on them. Fortunately.
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't know, Blowfish is a very strong cipher that supports up to 448-bit keys.
Just for kicks, I changed 2 lines of the code and made an "exportable" version with 32-bit keys.
Crypto export laws are a complete joke. The US does not have a monopoly on strong encryption; it's not as if we are supplying some scare resource to the rest of the world. If a 17 year old geek could implement strong encryption on a laptop in his bedroom, I am fairly certain a ring of terrorists could do the same.
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.
-John
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.
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.
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:4, Insightful)
I implemented Blowfish back in high school, using readily-available information
The problem with that is that your implementation may be flawed - this accounts for the bulk of the cracked encryption. That's why it's best to use known good encryption.
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:5, Funny)
That is probably why the export version of M$ Windows 2000 now ships with 128 bit encryption. The NSA knows that everything Microsoft does is flawed, but figures that it will lull the terrorists into a false sense of security...
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:2, Informative)
Looking at that article now today, and mind you it was not very technical, and it only described the math involved pretty sweeping, my biggest problem offhand from doing my own encryption would be generating big enough primes.
That is where any "advanced math algorithms" book, or for that matter site comes in. They are not gonna put restrictions on exporting prime numbers, are they?
It is stupid. A talented 15-year old with enough determination and time on his/her hands can hack something good enough together, if it wasn't already available out there. You think huge terrorist networks with tons of cash couldn't find someone to do it for them, if they needed it?
Don't you think that broke terrorists have at least a few among them that would do it for free?
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter because: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This statement is false. The knowledge of high school math won't help you develop cryptography at all. Most people with advanced math knowledge will only develop weak cryptography as well. What's really needed is somebody elses work, an algorithm, and the knowledge on how to implement it in software. As soon as you think you're going to develop a secure algorithm on your own you're screwed.
40 bit crypto was _desinged_ to be cracked (Score:5, Insightful)
That limit was
THL.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why not? It isn't as if there are any cryptographers [pgpi.org] in any other countries [www.ssh.fi] in the world, is it?
Legislation is pointless, and even damaging in this case. The cryptography playing field is fairly level. That's not inherently a good or a bad thing; just as al-Queda can encrypt their files, they are equally prevented from intercepting sensitive information by the same technology. If legislation restricts crypto, we will find ourselves in a situation in which the FBI can't crack terrorist comms, yet terrorists can intercept commercial data. Airline security information, oilrig blueprints, whatever.
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
1.) We're not talking about restricting domestic encryption here. The issue is specifically about export restrictions.
2.) What I see here is an instance where, because of our export restrictions, we WERE able to crack terrorist comms. The old argument of "They won't use handicapped software" doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
You might have a point if US citizens never traveled on non-US airlines. That simply isn't true. Terrorism is a global problem.
What I see here is an instance where, because of our export restrictions, we WERE able to crack terrorist comms. The old argument of "They won't use handicapped software" doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to.
It's very easy to fall into the trap of assuming that al-Queda are stupid. I am not committing sedition by saying they are in all likelihood just as smart as the law enforcers hunting them. With no technology, and (relatively) little money, massively outnumbered and outgunned, Osama and his people are still free. No-one knows where he as, and he is able to communicate with his organization at will.
Let me give you an analogy. The minimum wage high-school dropout flipping hamburgers doesn't mean that the global fast-food corporation isn't run by Harvard MBAs. The Shoebomber was a pawn in this, nothing more.
I have some familiarity with cryptography, because of my work, but it's not a life-or-death thing for me. You can bet every terrorist with a computer is googling for "crypto" right now.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
When did he say the data intercepted would be domestic? Terrorists operate worldwide, you know.
What I see here is an instance where, because of our export restrictions, we WERE able to crack terrorist comms. The old argument of "They won't use handicapped software" doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to.
How do you know it was because of our restrictions, as oppossed to simple lack of knowledge of the topic? Because strong encryption is available to anyway who really wants to get it... Especially if you have agents inside the US anyway.
Meaningless (Score:2, Redundant)
For instance, I could just fly over the US, buy/borrow/steal a copy of whatever software I wanted, dupe the CD and label it "Backstreet Boy's Greatest Hits" for my carry-on CD case.
Re:Meaningless (Score:2)
Even then you could do it (assuming your name only sets of warning bells, and doesn't get you arrested, of course, if it did, flying would not be such a smart idea at all ...): Use some steganography and burry your encryption software in some of the audio-tracks. Granted you would make it rather redundant, 'cause you got no error-correction in CD-Audio-Tracks, but it would be possible. And AFAIK steganography-software can be freely exportet....
When Strong Crypto Is Outlawed (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:When Strong Crypto Is Outlawed (Score:2)
Re:When Strong Crypto Is Outlawed (Score:2)
1.) This is about whether or not to export strong crypto, nothing more. So you'll need to rephrase to specify whether you mean foreign or domestic.
2.) What we have here is an example of an outlaw who DIDN'T have strong crypto. Now, did you actually read the article (or the post), or is this just your automatic response to anything that has "crypto" and "restrict" in the same paragraph?
Re:When Strong Crypto Is Outlawed (Score:2)
Doh, you fail to realize that "existence of export restrictions" do _not_ imply "outlaws/terrorists not having strong encryption software at hand", although I admit that they're not entirely orthogonal, as this one particular case shows.
The real issue here is that any non-us terrorist will have no problems whatsoever getting their hands on strong encryption, with or without export restrictions. Thus the export restrictions will only lead to false sense of security as only a puny majority of idiotic terrorists might get caught with the help of, say, Windoze lacking strong encryption by default due to export restrictions.
Moreover, after this incident, huge part of the remaining ignorant terrorists will be likely to start using strong encryption regardless of what M$ stuff ships with.
What is a Good Law? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is news? (Score:2)
The news is the who, not the what. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the NSA can uncover my deepest secrets, that's one thing. When a potential employer can decrypt anything protected with twenty year old technology, I don't worry yet, but talk to me again in my mid-40s. I wonder when some of the early posts to alt.anonymous.* will become decipherable.
Of course it should not be export-controlled (Score:2)
It is extremely easy for anyone with a computer and internet connection to get their hands on strong encryption. Just because one person chose to use weaker encryption and had his files broken by our government, it does NOT mean that he could not have found PGP on the internet and used that instead. Crypto export regulations are worthless and hurt US business (and even US Free Software).
Re:Of course it should not be export-controlled (Score:2)
That's like saying that you shouldn't use encryption at all because it will always be crackable with enough time.
The point of this legislation is the same as the point of encryption to begin with. It's not designed to totally prevent someone else from getting and using this software (that would be impossible), it's desinged to make it more difficult to get, enough so that some people decide that it's not worth the effort. Some people like our shoe bomb suspect.
Far better tools has been free for a long time (Score:2)
PGPdisk has been around for a long time.
So restricting US export will do nothing.
Users of *nix systems will probably have even more choices.
Bonus: PGP-folder-hooks in mutt [spinnaker.de]
Is this an issue? (Score:2)
My answer is "no," the U.S. should not prevent the exportation of encryption (as if it were so difficult for someone to smuggle a CD out of the country). It's a silly, feel-good measure, as nobody who is going to use encryption for nefarious purposes will be even mildly troubled by it.
However, the U.S. has traditionally prevented the exportation of encryption and only now permit it when it is wimpy enough to be easily breakable. So, is it really all that surprising that this happened?
No, no, no... (Score:2, Insightful)
It Did A Bad Job (Score:2)
I mean, afterall, where's the point in encrypting your stuff in the first place if it can be more or less trivially cracked?
No, this isn't about terrorists, it's about an obviously inferiour/defective product.
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.
Um, duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
And laws against theft don't stop determined shoplifters, and laws against copyright infringement don't stop determined Napster users, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not the point. The point is to make it (a) difficult and (b) punishable if someone does it, in order to keep it to a minimum.
A better argument would be to point out that there are ways to circumvent the law without breaking it -- by simply creating the software/hardware in another country using the same mathematical principles, for instance. But for the love of Pete, people, stop using "laws can always be broken" as an argument against making laws.
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:I don't get this... (Score:2)
10 seconds?! I have a half-megabit adsl link at home, and Windows 2000 service pack 2 (yeah, I run windows for games, sosueme) took a lot longer than 10 seconds to download
Seriously though, my first thought on seeing the story was that 128bit encryption is not only included in service pack 2, it's mandatory, and if you uninstall the service pack, you don't downgrade your level of encryption.
Really, this story is no different to all the ones about machines being rooted using exploits that have been patchable for ages. You can argue that a user shouldn't have to continually update and patch their system to stay safe, but they do. I shouldn't have to lock my house up when I leave it, but I do, because if I don't, I can't reasonably expect all my stuff to still be in it by the time I get back.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:I don't get this... (Score:2)
I have to admit to taking the "lazy b*****d" approach to upgrading my system and applying security patches, especially with Windows - I tend to go for the one shot, "fix it all at once" approach. On the other hand, the most valuable data on the box in question are my saved game files, so I'm not that worried about hosing it occasionally
Cheers,
Tim
Re:I don't get this... (Score:2)
Why do people think that having a law regarding exporting software/code is going to stop ANYONE from using it?
Exactly. Laws are made to deter the common citizen from doing wrong and to punish only those who are caught.
Shoe bomber = idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Conclusion: We know the guy is an idiot... what would happen if a SMART person tried this?
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)
Re:Shoe bomber != idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shoe bomber = idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear that that thought process is what got us into this mess in the first place. We have always assumed that these terrorists were unorganized nutcases running around with bombs attached to themselves.
And then on 9/11 we found out how organized and intelligent they could be and how ignorant we were. The truth is that there are some scarily intelligent people in these terrorist organizations who are using religious ferver to control otherwise sane individuals.
"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril." - Sun Tzu. The Art of War
Re:Shoe bomber = idiot (Score:2)
> We have always assumed that these terrorists were unorganized nutcases running around with bombs attached to themselves.
Or perhaps merely a few sane leaders who are exploiting all the nutcases they can round up?
Beyond the fundamental wrongness of mass murder, there's something seriously wrong about hiding in a cave back home while you send other people out to blow themselves up to score political points for you.
Too right! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is dead-on accurate. The line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is pretty damn thin, probably even non-existant. Mostly, the thing that determines what label applies is which side you are on.
By current standards, the actions of the French Resistance in WWII would be considered "terrorism". However, the partisans of the French Resistance will probably never be refered to as terrorists, because their opponents (the Nazis) are nearly universally recognized as being evil and (more importantly) they were on the winning side
IMHO what seperates the terrorist from a legitimate partisan is that the latter will not intentionally target civilians. The Pentagon was a valid military target by the accepted standards of warfare and international law; the WTC was not. If the 9/11 bombers had taken over the planes on the ground and evacuated the passengers first before making their kamakazi attacks, and if they had restricted themselves to military & government targets, the US would not have the near-universal international support we are currently enjoying for our military efforts in Afghanistan. If you want to be treated as a soldier and not a murderer, you need to play by the accepted rules of warfare. The fact that al-Queda and other terrorist groups fail to understand this basic premise just goes to show how ignorant and delusional they really are.
US blocking export (Score:2)
should the US prohibit the export of high-encryption software?
Oh FFS!
Must we go over this again!
Its already been exported!
Look
-export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
#!/bin/perl -sp0777iX+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((
Get with the program... (Score:5, Informative)
The Windows® 2000 operating system was the first Microsoft platform with 128-bit encryption to be shipped internationally after the United States government relaxed its export restrictions for strong encryption in early 2000. Microsoft has obtained the necessary approvals to ship Windows 2000 with strong encryption to all customers worldwide except U.S. embargoed destinations.
Yes, this is definately the way to go. (Score:5, Funny)
Even though Osama was able to get a bunch of people into US flight schools, he surely wouldn't've been able to go to CompUSA, buy a copy of W2K off the shelf, and somehow get a 5 x 5 x 1/16" piece of plastic outside a country with roughly 10,000 miles of borders and 1500 international flights daily. Nope, no way that coulda happened.
Why bother smuggleing a CD out? Books are legal. (Score:3, Informative)
somehow get a 5 x 5 x 1/16" piece of plastic outside a country
Why bother?
Just print the code in a book (or even use the 3-line RSA algoritham [cypherspace.org] on a bit of paper) and it was perfectly legal to export it from the US (freedom of the press).
This is how the international PGP versions were legitematley exported, and then scanned in using OCR to get the code in an electronic format again.
This was partly why the law was overturned. What is the point in banning the export of code in an electronic format, when it was perfectly legal (first amendment) to export in a writen format.
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?"
Of course.... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the point.
Don't you think one of the reasons the government would want weak encryption in foriegn (and therefor, possibly adversarial) computers, so it's easier to break into them?
Remember, for the most part, US laws protect US citizens, and are valid only within the confines of the United States. Since we don't really seem to care about how our government gathers information outside our country, It makes sense that the Government would want to make this easy, and one way is through export controls.
Don't like it? You have other options.
And note to Eurotrolls, who might take the chance to cry US-centric, or brute american, or whatever trash you usually spew, don't think for a second your government isn't engaged in every kind of spying it can.
Re:Of course.... (Score:2)
Heh, I am that EuroTroll, and I'm well aware of the kind of thing my goverment might be up to.
But that's not the point. The opportunity for US-bashing here is not "oh look, the US govt wants to break encryption" -- it's the ridiculous conceit that limiting export of the technology from the US would achieve anything at all.
(1) It's not enforceable -- how do you stop absolutely anyone from downloading crypto code from a US server; or walking over the Canadian border with a CD; or getting on a plane from LAX to Saudi Arabia with a data CD in a Maria Carey jewel case?
(2) Even if it was enforceable, to be useful it would need to be the case that only the USA was capable of creating crypto software. This is so patently not the case, that the US government has made an algorithm developed in Scandinavia its new standard (AES).
Re:Of course.... (Score:2)
Point is, your export laws doesn't stop us, or enyone, since we have our own encryption, developed at various places outside the US (Like
./~ I'm a eurrotroll, trolling in seine, in main and the english channel, but no-where can I find a USian in there to catch, for that, I go to slashdot to troll. Hey, I'm a eurotroll!
New slashdot poll (Score:3, Funny)
40 bit
128 bit
Cowboy Neal with a pen
Re:New slashdot poll (Score:3, Funny)
Jon Katz steganography.
Re:New slashdot poll (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Rjindael is from Belgium! (Score:2, Funny)
What a dum idea.
Steve.
A STARTLING admission by the Wall Street Journal! (Score:2)
It's amazing to me that these savvy WSJ reporters would admit to circumventing security measures in Windows 2000 in order to access these files! Don't they know that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of flaws?
I wonder if Junis' email is on either of these? Oh, wait, never mind, they aren't Commodore drives.
conspiracy theorie! (Score:3, Insightful)
Two journalist are in Afghanistan, one of their laptop is broken, so they deside to buy anther one.
So far, so good, I would probably have tried to repair it and ask for replacement, but then, I am not in Afghanistan.
They buy two computers, another laptop and a desktop. What did they buy the desktop for again?
And they buy it from people who are looting buildings? I always thought journalist to have low ethics anyway...
Instead of re-installing the PC, they decide to look at what is on it. Ok, I can understand that, but they must have spent quite some time looking at those files to determine that they were willing to spend five days to crack some of the encrypted files they found.
In other words, two american journalist pick up a PC (they had no reason to buy), and they happen to find Terrorist secret files on it. Sounds too good to be true. I don't buy it, it's a setup.
And now they use that to attest of the validity of the export restriction on encryption.
If the BSA or RIIA is going after me because I have some illegal stuff on my hard disk, I can just claim that I got my PC second hand, and that all this stuff was left there by the terrorists who had the PC first...
If only the US would ban export of weapons (Score:2, Interesting)
It wasn't the 40 bit encryption that was at fault (Score:4, Insightful)
If this guy was informed about cryptography (not necessarily knowledgable, but informed - sort of like having the equivalent of a financial planner for cryptography) he would've used one of a number of bolt on products to really secure his computer. Some of these products are commercial, others are open source. He may have more difficulty getting (and if he's properly informed - less trust in) the higher grade commercial packages but it'd still be doable. Fly to California, go to Fry's and buy it. If he goes for the source code route its just about impossible to police. You can get it anywhere in the world where there's an internet connection or a mail system (CD ROM or a package of floppies through the mail).
Saying that 40 bit encryption is an assistance to the CIA/FBI/NSA is only true if you rely on having stupid terrorists, in this case it was obviously true. Suppose they hired the equivalent of a director of IT though, who would come up with approved solutions. Life would become more difficult for the government. Whether the solutions that are proposed are legal or not doesn't matter. You're planning on blowing up aircraft, knocking down buildings and killing people. You won't even bat an eyelash at breaking encryption laws.
What low grade encryption really helps with is gathering data against ordinary citizens such as the guy who was a bit less than honest about his tax return.
Also, despite this low grade encryption the attack wasn't stopped. It's only after everybodies eyes were on this guy that his computer was examined and found to have low grade encryption.
Re:It wasn't the 40 bit encryption that was at fau (Score:3, Funny)
Recorded voice: "Please press 1 if your call is related to the time-limited explosives exchange program. Please press 2 if you are experiencing problems igniting your shoes. Or please hold to speak to a support terrorist."
(time passes)
Recorded voice: "Please hold.. your call is important to us, brother. We are currently transitioning our support strategy to Compaq Global Services."
(time passes.. bad musak to the tune of "The Girl from Ipanema")
BoFA (Bastard Operator from Afghanistan): "Hello, caller, you're through."
T: "Hi, er.. yeah.. my laptop seems to be broken.. I can't decrypt my files!"
BoFA: "Are you using the Standard Terrorist Operating Environment?"
T: "Er.. no.. my cell leader says that this other routine we found on the internet is more secure."
BoFA: "I'm afraid we only support the STOE with W2K SP2 128-bit EFS."
T: "Is there anything you can do?"
BoFA: "You can wipe the laptop and start again. We can do that for you, but we'll have to charge 10,000,000,000,000 afghanis (or US$100) to your cost code."
T: "But it's got secret plans of the Pentagon on it!"
BoFA: "I'm sorry, I can't help you. If every terrorist picks their favourite non-symmetric crypto, we can't be expected to know them all. We're trying to run an elite multinational terrorist organisation here."
T: "Okay.. I'll try somewhere else. On another matter, can you help me with my Palm Pilot? I stuffed it with C4, and now it won't start properly."
BoFA: "I'm afraid we only support Pocket PC."
*click*
Empirical evidence no match for clever theory? (Score:5, Insightful)
But everyone seems to conveniently ignore the fact that this group DID rely on the export strength encryption that they had available. They DIDN'T use PGP or any one of the myriad of other options for better encryption. Perhaps the premise that a slashdot reader is familiar with other encryption techniques isn't equivalent to the premise that an Al-Qaida member will be familiar with other encryption techniques.
Any reasonable and complete argument against limiting export strength encryption at least needs to address this fact. One could argue that it is an unusual case, that it won't be repeated, that you don't care if non-US folks have default access to better encryption, etc.
But arguing that it will never stop anyone from using better techniques seems silly when presented with this case of a group using exactly the default abilities that they were given in Win2k.
just a day at the office (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing, al-qaeda is owned by the l33t nsa haxors, and their credit card numbers are all over irc.
bummer for the sysadmin.
Encryption should be available to everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US could somehow ensure that we were the only ones who provided encryption, this may be an argument on national security bounds. However, we cannot.
If anything, all of this talk about encryption has provided criminals with the knowledge that we can eventually break in. Even if that were not the case, better encryption is available in any of over a hundred countries, many with little concern for US regulations. I believe 128-bit encryption has been freely available for years, provided by companies outside the US.
We need freely available encryption of every higher levels to stay ahead of our enemies (and some would argue our friends). Consider it only took five days to break the 40-bit encryption. How long would it take someone to brute force his or her way into a financial institution? Banks, trading firms; electronic merchants, etc. are and or should be constantly upgrading their security and encryption levels.
Encryption should be viewed like a car. A car has very powerful, valuable, perhaps even essential uses. Unfortunately, people can use cars to rob, kidnap, and murder. Still, we allow and even encourage access to cars because the benefits far outweigh the problems that periodically occur.
Definately. (Score:2)
Fuck it, why don't we just nuke EVERYONE else and start wearing helmets everywhere. Because, you know, we just need to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite this public knowledge, Al Quaeda has been using weak (MS-supplied) crypto to protect sensitive information... that could be discovered within days. Therefore:
Just my US$0.02...
Bear with me... (Score:2)
Just to be clear, I don't really have views on eportation of encryption. In this case, however, I see a lot of responses that just repeat the party lines "encryption can be found outside the US", "the US doesn't have a monopoly", and "criminals will get encryption anyway"
In this particular case these just aren't true. We got useful information BECAUSE the encryption used was weak. Ther's no way to calculate how many lives were potentially saved because of this situation, but as far as I'm concerned one life saved would be enough to justify exportation laws. It's not that strong encryption won't be found outside the US but that it's more difficult to get ahold of. If ridiculously strong encryption was available and packaged by default with operating systems, we would have had a much harder time getting access to those files. So, in this situation at least, the fact that strong encryption was not redily available did do some good.
Export BLAH! (Score:2)
Considering India and Pakistan are making and programming the super computers of the world, he could be using 666299465164-Bit encryption right?
Hell, he could be breaking our encryption. Right now he's reading your lame PGP encoded e-mails about that rash.
Seriously though, there are two major points here: Terrorists want you to read the contents of their hard drives. They do the things they do for attention/a message/for fun/whatever. And two, they already used encryption of sorts... when they bombed the WTC the first time they spoke in code on the phone.
Security through obscurity? No. Why bother encrypting ever letter and white space when you can change a few words and render the conversation useless to an outside listener.
Cryptography is nothing new, and wasn't invented for the computer. It goes way back, and takes many forms. Nothing you can do about that.
Don't you actually READ anything!?!? (Score:2, Informative)
1.) Export restrictions aren't about making it impossible to get high encryption (that in and of itself would be impossible), but to make it more difficult. Much like the point of encryption itself. Sure, you could get PGP and the like, but could you be bothered to go out of your way like that? Obviously at least one criminal didn't, or else you wouldn't be reading this.
2.) No, the criminals won't automatically be the most heavily-encrypted amongst us. If you actually took two seconds to read the description of the article (if not the article itself), you'd see that this is about a very big isntance where a criminal DIDN'T use heavy encryption. Your argument officially doesn't hold as much water as it used to any more. Time to try something new.
3.) This is about EXPORT restrictions. EXPORT! EXPORT! You know, where something LEAVES THE US!?!? Restricting what kind of crypto can be exported doesn't do a damned thing to the domestic market unless you're a seller trying to export your stuff or you're a foreign organization trying to buy the software on the open market. Restrictions on domestic crypto sale and use may or may not be an issue, but it doesn't have a damned thing to do with this article beyond sharing the words "crypto" and "export." If you read things more closely than your average IRC bot, you'd have noticed that.
Go ahead, mod me down to -17 flamebait or troll or whatever. Just so long as you're spending your mod points on sending me down there instead of modding up some of the posts I've seen in here so far described as "interesting" and "insightful."
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.
DVD CSS (Score:2)
Various Crypto Strengths.. (Score:3, Funny)
64 bit- You'll get my secrets when they're no longer of any use! (RC5 anyone?)
56 bit- Never! Never will you have my secrets. If never means three weeks from now anyway.
40 bit- You'll have to arm-wrestle me for access.
32 bit- You'll have to thumbwrestle me for access.
24 bit- You want access? You'll pry it from my cold, dead... Hey, give that back!!!
8 bit- What's your favorite color?
4 bit- Guess my shoe size
1 bit- Want access?
0 No
1 Yes
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.
Re:well that settles it.. (Score:3, Informative)
HE WAS/IS A CITIZEN OF THE USA
Since when? Reid is a British subject, not a US Citizen.
Re:well that settles it.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:well that settles it.. (Score:2)
No he wasn't.
Re:well that settles it.. (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, yeah. That's what they all say... :-)
40 bits is useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. 40-bit keys have no protective value. Remember the article about IBM's crypto chip being broken? (Somebody please provide the link to /. article, I can't at the moment.) In practice, they broke single DES, 56 bits worth of security in a good block cipher. In brute force.
It took at most 2 days with ~1000 $US worth of gear to find the key. Let's assume that they needed the full 48 hours to get that key broken. Simple math follows:
48 hours is 48*3600 seconds. It takes this much time to brute-force a 56-bit key. 40 bits is 1/(2^16) times the size of that, hence the time to break a 40-bit key with similar equipment is 48*3600/(2^16) seconds. This is no more than about 2.6 seconds.
To underline this as clearly as I can: 40-bit keys provide NO security. They may have provided some, at a time - but definetely not for some time now.
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:Good Idea! (Score:2)
Re:Good Idea! (Score:2)
Re:Too Many Secrets... (Score:2)
the US is no longer the top of encryption.
//rdj
Re:But ... the laws have changed already (Score:2)
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...
Re:Why YOU should care about crypto freedom. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely right. I'm surprised that sheer profit motive alone hasn't pushed big software corporations and their pals in Congress to permit and even encourage the export of more sophisticated encryption. Using weak encryption makes about as much sense as guarding your premises with flimsy locks and corrugated fences. I'm just as interested in keeping the government out of my business as I am keeping out competitors.
So what if better code-making leads to better code-breaking? You build better bullet-proof glass, and someone comes up with better bullets. (Likewise missile shield: missiles; mousetrap: mouse, etc.) It's progress. It's full employment for developers, programmers and marketers. I think profit motive will trump "patriotism" on this issue.
Re:why usa? (Score:2)
Um... maybe because we're the world's biggest importer/exporter of just about everything under the sun?
"They think they are the king of the world,"
And unlike all the other crackpots out there who think the same thing, we're right.
" but why should they decide for other country what to do?"
We decide only so far as how that country interacts with the US. After all, we're talking about export restrictions from the US, aren't we? The rest of the world has no right to dictate how we handle our own affairs or how we make decisions that affect us.
"that's the same for encryption, US should control everything, every bits, every communication, every philosophies?"
Control? Probably not. But have a hand in it or an eye on it for the sake of improving our own? Hell yes. And if you don't like dealing with US export policies, there's always the alternative of not using US software. Ever think of that before you started whining?
"sorry, but I just hate US way of thinking and Bush administration."
You hate it so much you come to a forum where the majority of the participants are from the US?
"I lives in Canada and we are becoming a state of the US Empire, I just soooo hate and disapprove this,"
... and bitching about it here is more effective than writing a letter of complaint to your MPs because...?
"I wanna go somewhere else!"
... and Slashdot counts as "somewhere else" because...?