The Criminal N.S.A.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:02 pm

NSA Has Been Spying On Members Of Congress For A Long Time
By: DSWright Wednesday August 28, 2013 10:37 am


During the drama over the so-called Amash Amendment General Keith Alexander, head of the NSA, went to Capitol Hill to lobby against the law. During the course of his lobbying members of Congress responded to his presentations with a reasonable question – can we see our own files? Alexander said no. According to David Sirota of NSFW Corp these exchanges are quite revealing as to how the NSA’s power works in Washington.

Consider the deep messaging of the NSA’s brand. Only forty years removed from the blackmail-tinged reign of J. Edgar Hoover, the NSA has developed an image which implies the agency is vacuuming up more than enough incriminating phone records, emails and text/sext messages to politically torpedo any rank-and-file congressman, should that congressman step out of line.

And here’s the thing: for all the agita intelligence officials express about new disclosures, those disclosures illustrate the sheer size and scope of governement surveillance. That doesn’t weaken the NSA – on the contrary, it serves to politically strengthen the agency by constantly reminding lawmakers that the NSA 1) probably has absolutely everything on them and 2) could use that stuff against them.

Sirota also spoke with Rep. Alan Grayson who told him that in the course of the conversation about the NSA and files they might have on members of Congress said “one of my colleagues asked the NSA point blank will you give me a copy of my own record and the NSA said no, we won’t. They didn’t say no we don’t have one. They said no we won’t.” Dare anyone accuse the NSA of being cryptic?

Of course we already know that it was Nancy Pelosi that killed the Amash Amendment. What we don’t know is whether she did so out of fear of an NSA file, party interests or both. We also know she was involved in insider trading while in Congress. What more does the NSA know about her?

There was also a report by a former intelligence analyst and whistleblower Russell Tice that the NSA wiretapped Barack Obama in 2004. Is there some massive archive of politicians’ dirty secrets somewhere at the NSA? Surely the NSA at least has their metadata – they have everyone’s. It is hard to imagine when push comes to shove and its budget time that the NSA doesn’t take a peek at who they are doing business with in Congress. Intelligence is all about having as much information as possible, that’s the training and that’s the game. Old habits probably die hard.

It was a troubling thought, but I had no smoking gun evidence to support it, until I heard Mark Ames discussing Sirota’s story with Sirota yesterday. Ames referenced a blockbuster story broken by New York Times reporter Scott Shane. Published by the Baltimore Sun, the story Listening in: Though the National Security Agency can’t target Americans, it can — and does — listen to everyone from senators to lovers, provides smoking gun evidence that the NSA has been spying on members of Congress and allowing the information to be used for leverage since at least the Reagan Administration.

“We listened to all the calls in and out of Washington,” says one former NSA linguist, recalling a class at the Warrenton Training Center, a CIA communications school on a Virginia hilltop. “We’d listen to senators, representatives, government agencies, housewives talking to their lovers.”…

“Even when they target foreigners, they end up picking up a lot of Americans,” says Mark H. Lynch, an attorney who tracked NSA for the American Civil Liberties Union from 1977 to 1985. Just ask former Maryland Rep. Michael D. Barnes. His calls to Nicaraguan government officials were intercepted and recorded by NSA – as he learned only after transcripts were leaked by the Reagan White House, he says.

Congressman Barnes became a thorn in the side of the Reagan Administration and the US intelligence community over his opposition to US activity in Nicaragua.

“Reporters told me right-wingers were circulating excerpts from phone conversations I’d had,” says Mr. Barnes, now a Washington lawyer. He says the calls included one to the Nicaraguan foreign minister protesting his government’s declaration of martial law.

On another occasion, Mr. Barnes says, the director of central intelligence, William J. Casey, showed him a Nicaraguan Embassy cable intercepted by NSA that reported a meeting between embassy officials and a Barnes’ aide. Mr. Casey told him he should fire the aide; Mr. Barnes angrily replied that it was perfectly proper for his staff to meet with foreign diplomats.

Mr. Barnes says he did not object to being overheard. But he said the incidents were a reminder of the potential for the abuse of NSA’s awesome eavesdropping capacity. “I was aware that NSA monitored international calls, that it was a standard part of intelligence gathering,” he says. “But to use it for domestic political purposes is absolutely outrageous and probably illegal.”

So there is nothing new under the sun. Information is power and in political struggles one should not be so surprised that information will be used and abused by political actors. Now solid and reasonable curtailments of NSA’s wildly expansive power are getting crushed in Congress despite widespread popularity in both parties.

What’s going on behind the scenes? Is the NSA using its data for political gain?
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby DrEvil » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:35 pm

In ACLU lawsuit, scientist demolishes NSA’s “It’s just metadata” excuse

The power of metadata: Addiction, sex, and accusations can all be discovered.

When the scandal about the National Security Agency (NSA) leaks first broke, one of the government's talking points quickly became that its giant database of domestic phone calls was simply "metadata."

"Nobody is listening to your telephone calls," said President Barack Obama a few days after the program became public. "That’s not what this program’s about... by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism."

Privacy activists noted that the "metadata" held plenty of private information. Just six days after the Snowden NSA leaks revealed that the government was collecting essentially all telephone call "metadata," the ACLU filed a new lawsuit challenging the practice as unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the ACLU filed a declaration by Princeton Computer Science Prof. Edward Felten to support its quest for a preliminary injunction in that lawsuit. Felten, a former technical director of the Federal Trade Commission, has testified to Congress several times on technology issues, and he explained why "metadata" really is a big deal.

Storage and data-mining have come a long way in the past 35 years, Felten notes, and metadata is uniquely easy to analyze—unlike the complicated data of a call itself, with variations in language, voice, and conversation style. "This newfound data storage capacity has led to new ways of exploiting the digital record," writes Felten. "Sophisticated computing tools permit the analysis of large datasets to identify embedded patterns and relationships, including personal details, habits, and behaviors."

There are already programs that make it easy for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to analyze such data, like IBM's Analyst's Notebook. IBM offers courses on how to use Analyst's Notebook to understand call data better.


More at link: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... ta-excuse/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:51 pm

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby elfismiles » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:55 pm

Journalists Under Attack - New World Next Week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFUvBdd2fK8

Published on Aug 22, 2013

Welcome to http://NewWorldNextWeek.com -- the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week, James and James try something different as they cover a number of updates and addenda to breaking news stories from across the globe:

CIA Documents Acknowledge Role In Iran's '53 Operation Ajax Coup
http://ur1.ca/f5vxh

NSA Surveillance Said To Be Broader Than Initially Believed - Covers 75% Of Internet
http://ur1.ca/f5vxk

White House Won't Condemn Detention of Glenn Greenwald's Partner
http://ur1.ca/f5vxo

NSA Collects 'Word for Word' Every Domestic Communication, Says Former Analyst
http://ur1.ca/ev7ua

Guardian Editor Says Destruction Of Snowden Data "Won't Harm Our Reporting"
http://ur1.ca/f5vxx

Why The Guardian Destroyed Hard Drives Of Leaked Files
http://ur1.ca/f5vy2

Michael Hastings' Toxicology Reports Twisted Throughout Media
http://ur1.ca/f5vy7

Bradley Manning Gets 35 Years For Leaking Classified Files
http://ur1.ca/f5vya

Video: Latest Syrian Chemical Attack Follows History of False Flag Provocations
http://ur1.ca/f5vym

Tank At Crippled Japan Nuclear Plant Leaks Highly Radioactive Water
http://ur1.ca/f5vyo

At The Root Of Egyptian Rage Is A Deepening Resource Crisis
http://ur1.ca/f5vyr

Why Conspiracy Theories Still Haunt Princess Diana
http://ur1.ca/f5vyv

Ground Zero On The CIA's Area 51 "Admissions"
http://ur1.ca/f5vz2

Visit http://NewWorldNextWeek.com to get previous episodes in various formats to download, burn and share. And as always, stay up-to-date by subscribing to the feeds from Corbett Report http://ur1.ca/39obd and Media Monarchy http://ur1.ca/kuec Thank you.

Previous Episode: Lavabit Shutdown, Mars Mission, Weed TV
http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=7795

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:50 am

French prosecutor investigates U.S. Prism spying scheme


PARIS | Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:20pm EDT

(Reuters) - The Paris prosecutor's office said on Wednesday it had launched a preliminary investigation into the U.S. National Security Agency's Prism surveillance program after French rights groups complained it was snooping on citizens' emails and phone calls.

The probe, which was opened in mid-July, followed a legal complaint earlier that month by two human rights groups denouncing U.S. spying methods revealed by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

The groups filed their complaint against "persons unknown" but named Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Paltalk, Facebook, AOL and Apple as "potential accomplices" of the NSA and FBI.

The original complaint was filed by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the French Human Rights League (LDH).

The prosecutor's office said it had ordered investigating police to examine claims of fraudulent access to an automated data processing system, collection of personal data by fraudulent means and willful violation of the intimacy of private life.

In a preliminary investigation, police determine whether there is enough evidence to open a formal investigation.

In July, the rights groups said French laws had been violated and called for an investigation into the reports on U.S. surveillance that appeared in Britain's Guardian newspaper, the Washington Post and German news magazine Der Spiegel.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:33 pm

Revealed: The NSA’s Secret Campaign to Crack, Undermine Internet Security


by Jeff Larson, ProPublica, Nicole Perlroth, The New York Times, and Scott Shane, The New York Times, Sep. 5, 2013, 3:08 p.m.

Note: This story is not subject to our Creative Commons license.

Editor's Note: Why We Published the Decryption Story

The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.
This story has been reported in partnership between The New York Times, the Guardian and ProPublica based on documents obtained by The Guardian.

For the Guardian: James Ball, Julian Borger, Glenn Greenwald
For the New York Times: Nicole Perlroth, Scott Shane
For ProPublica: Jeff Larson

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.
What's New Here

The NSA has secretly and successfully worked to break many types of encryption, the widely used technology that is supposed to make it impossible to read intercepted communications.
Referring to the NSA's efforts, a 2010 British document stated: "Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data are now exploitable." Another British memo said: "Those not already briefed were gobsmacked!"
The NSA has worked with American and foreign tech companies to introduce weaknesses into commercial encryption products, allowing backdoor access to data that users believe is secure.
The NSA has deliberately weakened the international encryption standards adopted by developers around the globe.

Documents

BULLRUN Briefing Sheet from GCHQ
SIGINT Enabling Project

Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own “back door” in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.

The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.

The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. And the agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.

“For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,” said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. “Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.”

When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, “those not already briefed were gobsmacked!”

An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. “We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic,” the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.

In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.’s broad reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects.

The agency’s success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans’ e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.

The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say.

Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by Qaeda leaders about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials’ messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work.

But some experts say the N.S.A.’s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications.

Some of the agency’s most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL, virtual private networks, or VPNs, and the protection used on fourth generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company’s computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network.

For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in close collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of the most popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft’s Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed “new access opportunities” into Google’s systems, according to the document.

“The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you’re not the only one to exploit it,” said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too.”

Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip.

“And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone,” Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency’s mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information.

“The intelligence community has worried about ‘going dark’ forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort,” he said. “This is the golden age of spying.”
A Vital Capability

The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus primarily on GCHQ but include thousands either from or about the N.S.A.

Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying that it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful tools for protecting the privacy of Americans and others.

The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s Web site in June.

“Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,” he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.

The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers.

“In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,” a 2007 document said. “It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.”

The full extent of the N.S.A.’s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas — both names of American Civil War battles. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century.

Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict “need to know” basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, “there will be NO ‘need to know.’ ”

Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program’s capabilities, methods and sources.
Ties to Internet Companies

When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, with the rise of the Internet, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to the Web address on their computer screen.

Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency’s success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware.

According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which “actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs” to make them “exploitable.” Sigint is the abbreviation for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping.

By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by surreptitiously exploiting existing security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments.

In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.

The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights “partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses” — that is, to allow more eavesdropping.

At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft’s most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company’s cloud storage service.

Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with “lawful demands” of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Executives who refuse to comply with secret court orders can face fines or jail time.

N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.

How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies’ computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. “Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies,” a GCHQ document says, “will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys.”

Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency’s 2013 budget request was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method.

Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United States’ encryption standards body, and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.

Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.”

“Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says.

Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.’s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products and services to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency’s hacking division uses that same program to develop and “leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners” to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.
A Way Around

By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, or P.G.P., designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key.

That proposal met a broad backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America’s global edge in technology.

By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream.

“Every new technology required new expertise in exploiting it, as soon as possible,” one classified document says.

Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled “This can’t be good.”

But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government’s nuclear department and another’s Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them.

By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300.

But the agencies’ goal was to move away from decrypting targets’ tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world’s fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.

A 2010 document calls for “a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted.” By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed “groundbreaking capabilities” against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum.

But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere “fact of” decryption became widely known. “These capabilities are among the Sigint community’s most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple ‘fact of’ could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,” a GCHQ document outlining the Bullrun program warned.
Corporate Pushback

Since Mr. Snowden’s disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying.

Google, Yahoo and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government’s secret requests for cooperation. One small e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, shut down rather than comply with the agency’s demands for what it considered confidential customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face similar demands.

In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered.

Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. “Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent,” he wrote, “I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”

John Markoff contributed reporting for The New York Times.




Government Attempts To Suppress NSA Reporting Haven't Worked So Well

The Huffington Post | By Jack Mirkinson Posted: 09/05/2013 4:05 pm EDT | Updated: 09/05/2013 6:15 pm EDT

The decision by the British government to aggressively intervene in the Guardian's surveillance reporting has only led to further exposure of the secrets the UK had sought to protect, as the publication on Thursday of new surveillance revelations in that paper, along with the New York Times and ProPublica, showed.

David Cameron personally ordered his senior civil servant to threaten the Guardian with legal action if it failed to hand over or destroy documents about the British intelligence agency GCHQ. He was also kept abreast of the detention of the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald at Heathrow airport, as was the White House.

Unfortunately for Cameron, and his American counterparts, the Guardian turned to the Times and ProPublica for assistance. The Times had previously come under scrutiny for the way it had covered--or, in the eyes of its critics, undercovered--the NSA story. Drawing perhaps the most influential news organization in the world more deeply into that story was likely not what American or British officials wanted.

The first results of that collaboration were published on Thursday, with major splashes on all three websites. In its piece, the Times wrote that it was publishing the story over government objections:

Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying that it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful tools for protecting the privacy of Americans and others.

ProPublica published a similar open letter on its website.



[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/propublica-nsa-decryption-story_n_3875428.html?utm_hp_ref=mediaProPublica: Why We Published NSA Decryption Story[/url]

Posted: 09/05/2013 3:25 pm EDT | Updated: 09/05/2013 3:39 pm EDT

by Stephen Engelberg and Richard Tofel, ProPublica

ProPublica is today publishing a story in partnership with the Guardian and The New York Times about U.S. and U.K. government efforts to decode enormous amounts of Internet traffic previously thought to have been safe from prying eyes. This story is based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, the former intelligence community employee and contractor. We want to explain why we are taking this step, and why we believe it is in the public interest.

The story, we believe, is an important one. It shows that the expectations of millions of Internet users regarding the privacy of their electronic communications are mistaken. These expectations guide the practices of private individuals and businesses, most of them innocent of any wrongdoing. The potential for abuse of such extraordinary capabilities for surveillance, including for political purposes, is considerable. The government insists it has put in place checks and balances to limit misuses of this technology. But the question of whether they are effective is far from resolved and is an issue that can only be debated by the people and their elected representatives if the basic facts are revealed.

It's certainly true that some number of bad actors (possibly including would-be terrorists) have been exchanging messages through means they assumed to be safe from interception by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Some of these bad actors may now change their behavior in response to our story.

In weighing this reality, we have not only taken our own counsel and that of our publishing partners, but have also conferred with the government of the United States, a country whose freedoms give us remarkable opportunities as journalists and citizens.

Two possible analogies may help to illuminate our thinking here.

First, a historical event: In 1942, shortly after the World War II Battle of Midway, the Chicago Tribune published an article suggesting, in part, that the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code (which it had). Nearly all responsible journalists we know would now say that the Tribune's decision to publish this information was a mistake. But today's story bears no resemblance to what the Tribune did. For one thing, the U.S. wartime code-breaking was confined to military communications. It did not involve eavesdropping on civilians.

The second analogy, while admittedly science fiction, seems to us to offer a clearer parallel. Suppose for a moment that the U.S. government had secretly developed and deployed an ability to read individuals' minds. Such a capability would present the greatest possible invasion of personal privacy. And just as surely, it would be an enormously valuable weapon in the fight against terrorism.

Continuing with this analogy, some might say that because of its value as an intelligence tool, the existence of the mind-reading program should never be revealed. We do not agree. In our view, such a capability in the hands of the government would pose an overwhelming threat to civil liberties. The capability would not necessarily have to be banned in all circumstances. But we believe it would need to be discussed, and safeguards developed for its use. For that to happen, it would have to be known.

There are those who, in good faith, believe that we should leave the balance between civil liberty and security entirely to our elected leaders, and to those they place in positions of executive responsibility. Again, we do not agree. The American system, as we understand it, is premised on the idea -- championed by such men as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison -- that government run amok poses the greatest potential threat to the people's liberty, and that an informed citizenry is the necessary check on this threat. The sort of work ProPublica does -- watchdog journalism -- is a key element in helping the public play this role.

American history is replete with examples of the dangers of unchecked power operating in secret. Richard Nixon, for instance, was twice elected president of this country. He tried to subvert law enforcement, intelligence and other agencies for political purposes, and was more than willing to violate laws in the process. Such a person could come to power again. We need a system that can withstand such challenges. That system requires public knowledge of the power the government possesses. Today's story is a step in that direction.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:51 pm

Latest Snowden revelation: NSA sabotaged electronic locks
By Jon Healey

September 5, 2013, 4:57 p.m.

The latest Edward Snowden-powered exposé published by the New York Times, ProPublica and the Guardian is, to me, the most frightening. It reveals that the National Security Agency has moved beyond its historic role as a code-breaker to become a saboteur of the encryption systems. Its work has allegedly weakened the scrambling not just of terrorists' emails but also bank transactions, medical records and communications among coworkers.

Here's the money graf:

"The NSA hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. And the agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world."

I'd be disappointed if the NSA hadn't figured out how to do that hacking trick. But adding vulnerabilities to standard encryption techniques? That's just making the job easier for hackers to make sense of the scrambled data they steal.

The outrage is still pouring in from various advocacy groups. Here's a succinct condemnation by the Center on Democracy and Technology, one of the more centrist of these organizations:

"These revelations demonstrate a fundamental attack on the way the Internet works," senior staff technologist Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote in a statement. "In an era in which businesses, as well as the average consumer, trust secure networks and technologies for sensitive transactions and private communications online, it’s incredibly destructive for the NSA to add flaws to such critical infrastructure. The NSA seems to be operating on the fantastically naïve assumption that any vulnerabilities it builds into core Internet technologies can only be exploited by itself and its global partners."

Every form of encryption can theoretically be cracked, given enough time and processing power. But the mere use of encryption has encouraged data thieves to look elsewhere for targets, on the same principle that even weak bike locks are effective when there are unlocked bikes nearby.

The easier it is to pick the electronic locks used online, the less of a deterrent they become.

The NSA's efforts appear to be the Plan B implemented after the Clinton administration failed to persuade the communications industry in the mid-1990s to use government-developed encryption technologies for voice and data transmissions. The decryption keys would have been held by the government, available to the NSA as necessary. But industry ultimately rejected the plan because of a fundamental vulnerability: a stolen or cracked "master key" could have unlocked every bit of scrambled data.

The latest Snowden-leaked documents outline a multi-pronged assault by the NSA on the various forms of encryption used online. Its techniques included more traditional code-breaking as well as the aforementioned hacking and weakening efforts. Thursday's stories didn't identify the forms of encryption that the NSA undermined, saying more generally that the agency had targeted the secure version of HTTP, Secure Sockets Layer, virtual private networking technology and the encryption used on 4G smartphones.

In short, the implication of the mass of documents leaked thus far is that the NSA is not just monitoring seemingly every utterance on the planet, it is planting weaknesses in the security technology that protects legitimate online communications for the sake of decrypting illegitimate ones.

I'm looking forward to hearing the NSA's defenders explain why we should feel safer now.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:59 pm

Not Even Encryption Will Save You, Snowden Documents Show


Posted on Sep 5, 2013
highwaycharlie (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The NSA has thwarted many of the encryption safeguards currently relied on to protect the online activities, communications and data of governments, banks, hospitals and hundreds of millions of private citizens, major news outlets in possession of classified documents provided by whistle-blower Edward Snowden report.

The revelation by The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica undercuts a key promise made by Internet companies to their customers: “that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government,” The New York Times reports. The NSA wants Internet users to go on assuming such shields exist. “The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets,” the Times notes. The documents do not tell which companies have participated.

The files, which come from both the NSA and Britain’s official spying apparatus, the GCHQ, describe the capabilities and other details of the Sigint Enabling program, and show how desperate both agencies were to find their way around the major means of protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age. According to The Guardian, they reveal:

• A 10-year NSA program against encryption technologies made a breakthrough in 2010 which made “vast amounts” of data collected through internet cable taps newly “exploitable”.

• The NSA spends $250m a year on a program which, among other goals, works with technology companies to “covertly influence” their product designs.
• The secrecy of their capabilities against encryption is closely guarded, with analysts warned: “Do not ask about or speculate on sources or methods.”
• The NSA describes strong decryption programs as the “price of admission for the US to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace”.
• A GCHQ team has been working to develop ways into encrypted traffic on the “big four” service providers, named as Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook.

The documents show that after losing a public battle in the 1990s to insert into software its own “backdoors” to gain control in all encryption, the NSA in 2000 began a successful stealth campaign “over setting of international encryption standards, the use of supercomputers to break encryption with ‘brute force’ and—the most closely guarded secret of all—collaboration with technology companies and internet service providers themselves,” The Guardian reports. Through those partnerships, the agencies inserted secret vulnerabilities into commercial encryption software. Those weaknesses provided entry points into the products and sometimes the host machines.

The newly revealed capabilities are consistent with the NSA’s goal to move away from breaking communications and programs one by one and instead decoding all information flying through cyberspace in real time, to be sorted through for valuable intelligence later.

Funding for the effort dwarfed the $20 million data collection program called PRISM, revealed by The Guardian and The Washington Post earlier this year. According to an NSA budget document, one of the agency’s goals in 2013 was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method, The New York Times reported.

“The agency’s success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans’ e-mails or phone calls without a warrant,” the Times continued. “But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.”

The Guardian noted that the documents suggest the agencies have not yet cracked all encryption technologies. “Snowden appeared to confirm this during a live Q&A with Guardian readers in June,” the paper said. “ ‘Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,’ he said before warning that the NSA can frequently find ways around it as a result of weak security on the computers at either end of the communication.”

The disclosure comes one week after The Washington Post reported NSA budget documents revealed the agency’s ability to break into and take over individual computers.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby Joao » Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:11 am

The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back
The NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. We engineers built the internet – and now we have to fix it
Bruce Schneier, The Guardian, Thursday 5 September 2013

Government and industry have betrayed the internet, and us.

By subverting the internet at every level to make it a vast, multi-layered and robust surveillance platform, the NSA has undermined a fundamental social contract. The companies that build and manage our internet infrastructure, the companies that create and sell us our hardware and software, or the companies that host our data: we can no longer trust them to be ethical internet stewards.

This is not the internet the world needs, or the internet its creators envisioned. We need to take it back.

And by we, I mean the engineering community.

Yes, this is primarily a political problem, a policy matter that requires political intervention.

But this is also an engineering problem, and there are several things engineers can – and should – do.

One, we should expose. If you do not have a security clearance, and if you have not received a National Security Letter, you are not bound by a federal confidentially requirements or a gag order. If you have been contacted by the NSA to subvert a product or protocol, you need to come forward with your story. Your employer obligations don't cover illegal or unethical activity. If you work with classified data and are truly brave, expose what you know. We need whistleblowers.

We need to know how exactly how the NSA and other agencies are subverting routers, switches, the internet backbone, encryption technologies and cloud systems. I already have five stories from people like you, and I've just started collecting. I want 50. There's safety in numbers, and this form of civil disobedience is the moral thing to do.

Two, we can design. We need to figure out how to re-engineer the internet to prevent this kind of wholesale spying. We need new techniques to prevent communications intermediaries from leaking private information.

We can make surveillance expensive again. In particular, we need open protocols, open implementations, open systems – these will be harder for the NSA to subvert.

The Internet Engineering Task Force, the group that defines the standards that make the internet run, has a meeting planned for early November in Vancouver. This group needs to dedicate its next meeting to this task. This is an emergency, and demands an emergency response.

Three, we can influence governance. I have resisted saying this up to now, and I am saddened to say it, but the US has proved to be an unethical steward of the internet. The UK is no better. The NSA's actions are legitimizing the internet abuses by China, Russia, Iran and others. We need to figure out new means of internet governance, ones that makes it harder for powerful tech countries to monitor everything. For example, we need to demand transparency, oversight, and accountability from our governments and corporations.

Unfortunately, this is going play directly into the hands of totalitarian governments that want to control their country's internet for even more extreme forms of surveillance. We need to figure out how to prevent that, too. We need to avoid the mistakes of the International Telecommunications Union, which has become a forum to legitimize bad government behavior, and create truly international governance that can't be dominated or abused by any one country.

Generations from now, when people look back on these early decades of the internet, I hope they will not be disappointed in us. We can ensure that they don't only if each of us makes this a priority, and engages in the debate. We have a moral duty to do this, and we have no time to lose.

Dismantling the surveillance state won't be easy. Has any country that engaged in mass surveillance of its own citizens voluntarily given up that capability? Has any mass surveillance country avoided becoming totalitarian? Whatever happens, we're going to be breaking new ground.

Again, the politics of this is a bigger task than the engineering, but the engineering is critical. We need to demand that real technologists be involved in any key government decision making on these issues. We've had enough of lawyers and politicians not fully understanding technology; we need technologists at the table when we build tech policy.

To the engineers, I say this: we built the internet, and some of us have helped to subvert it. Now, those of us who love liberty have to fix it.
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:24 am

Sweden 'a close partner' in NSA surveillance

Published: 6 Sep 2013 07:34 CET

The Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) has a close partnership with the US National Security Agency (NSA) and British GCHQ, according to information provided to the European Parliament.


The claims have emerged in a hearing on the wire tapping scandal of a committee in the European Parliament and come from investigative journalist Duncan Campbell, according to a report in the Metro daily.

Campbell told the committee that Swedish participation extended to FRA giving the US access to the Baltic underwater cables. Sweden is reported to have been given the codename Sardine, according to Campbell.

FRA spokesman Fredrik Wallin declined to comment on the data.

European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties (Libe), has been tasked with gathering information about the wire tapping scandal, and launched on Thursday a series of hearings.

The main purpose is to explore how EU citizens have been affected by the surveillance they were subjected to by the US and the UK, the chairman Claude Moraes has explained.

Campbell claimed that Sweden was the third major partner in the surveillance cooperation, according to his tweets which emerged from the hearing.

The UK Guardian reported on Thursday that US and UK intelligence agencies have managed to crack technology used to encrypt internet services such as online banking, medical records and email.

The encryption techniques targeted by the NSA and GCHQ are reported to be used by popular internet services such as Google, Facebook and Yahoo.

The information comes from the latest series of documents released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The US is seeking the extradition of Snowden who remains in Russia after having been granted temporary asylum.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby Aldebaran » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:41 am


Thursday, September 5, 2013


On the NSA

ImageLet me tell you the story of my tiny brush with the biggest crypto story of the year.

A few weeks ago I received a call from a reporter at ProPublica, asking me background questions about encryption. Right off the bat I knew this was going to be an odd conversation, since this gentleman seemed convinced that the NSA had vast capabilities to defeat encryption. And not in a 'hey, d'ya think the NSA has vast capabilities to defeat encryption?' kind of way. No, he'd already established the defeating. We were just haggling over the details.

Oddness aside it was a fun (if brief) set of conversations, mostly involving hypotheticals. If the NSA could do this, how might they do it? What would the impact be? I admit that at this point one of my biggest concerns was to avoid coming off like a crank. After all, if I got quoted sounding too much like an NSA conspiracy nut, my colleagues would laugh at me. Then I might not get invited to the cool security parties.

All of this is a long way of saying that I was totally unprepared for today's bombshell revelations describing the NSA's efforts to defeat encryption. Not only does the worst possible hypothetical I discussed appear to be true, but it's true on a scale I couldn't even imagine. I'm no longer the crank. I wasn't even close to cranky enough.

And since I never got a chance to see the documents that sourced the NYT/ProPublica story -- and I would give my right arm to see them -- I'm determined to make up for this deficit with sheer speculation. Which is exactly what this blog post will be.

'Bullrun' and 'Cheesy Name'

If you haven't read the NYT or Guardian stories, you probably should. The TL;DR is that the NSA has been doing some very bad things. At a combined cost of $250 million per year, they include:
  1. Tampering with national standards (NIST is specifically mentioned) to promote weak, or otherwise vulnerablecryptography.
  2. Influencing standards committees to weaken protocols.
  3. Working with hardware and software vendors to weaken encryption and random number generators.
  4. Attacking the encryption used by 'the next generation of 4G phones'.
  5. Obtaining cleartext access to 'a major internet peer-to-peer voice and text communications system' (Skype?)
  6. Identifying and cracking vulnerable keys.
  7. Establishing a Human Intelligence division to infiltrate the global telecommunications industry.
  8. And worst of all (to me): somehow decrypting SSL connections.
All of these programs go by different code names, but the NSA's decryption program goes by the name 'Bullrun' so that's what I'll use here.

How to break a cryptographic system

There's almost too much here for a short blog post, so I'm going to start with a few general thoughts. Readers of this blog should know that there are basically three ways to break a cryptographic system. In no particular order, they are:
  1. Attack the cryptography. This is difficult and unlikely to work against the standard algorithms we use (though there are exceptions like RC4.) However there are many complex protocols in cryptography, and sometimes they are vulnerable.
  2. Go after the implementation. Cryptography is almost always implemented in software -- and software is a disaster. Hardware isn't that much better. Unfortunately active software exploits only work if you have a target in mind. If your goal is mass surveillance, you need to build insecurity in from the start. That means working with vendors to add backdoors.
  3. Access the human side. Why hack someone's computer if you can get them to give you the key?
Bruce Schneier, who has seen the documents, says that 'math is good', but that 'code has been subverted'. He also says that the NSA is 'cheating'. Which, assuming we can trust these documents, is a huge sigh of relief. But it also means we're seeing a lot of (2) and (3) here.

So which code should we be concerned about? Which hardware?



Image

SSL Servers by OS type. Source: Netcraft.

This is probably the most relevant question. If we're talking about commercial encryption code, the lion's share of it uses one of a small number of libraries. The most common of these are probably the Microsoft CryptoAPI (and Microsoft SChannel) along with the OpenSSL library.

Of the libraries above, Microsoft is probably due for the most scrutiny. While Microsoft employs good (and paranoid!) people to vet their algorithms, their ecosystem is obviously deeply closed-source. You can view Microsoft's code (if you sign enough licensing agreements) but you'll never build it yourself. Moreover they have the market share. If any commercial vendor is weakening encryption systems, Microsoft is probably the most likely suspect.

And this is a problem because Microsoft IIS powers around 20% of the web servers on the Internet -- and nearly forty percent of the SSL servers! Moreover, even third-party encryption programs running on Windows often depend on CAPI components, including the random number generator. That makes these programs somewhat dependent on Microsoft's honesty.

Probably the second most likely candidate is OpenSSL. I know it seems like heresy to imply that OpenSSL -- an open source and widely-developed library -- might be vulnerable. But at the same time it powers an enormous amount of secure traffic on the Internet, thanks not only to the dominance of Apache SSL, but also due to the fact that OpenSSL is used everywhere. You only have to glance at the FIPS CMVP validation lists to realize that many 'commercial' encryption products are just thin wrappers around OpenSSL.

Unfortunately while OpenSSL is open source, it periodically coughs up vulnerabilities. Part of this is due to the fact that it's a patchwork nightmare originally developed by a novice who thought it would be a fun way to learn C. Part of it is because crypto is unbelievably complicated. Either way, there are very few people who really understand the whole codebase.

ImageOn the hardware side (and while we're throwing out baseless accusations) it would be awfully nice to take another look at the Intel Secure Key integrated random number generators that most Intel processors will be getting shortly. Even if there's no problem, it's going to be an awfully hard job selling these internationally after today's news.

Which standards?

From my point of view this is probably the most interesting and worrying part of today's leak. Software is almost always broken, but standards -- in theory -- get read by everyone. It should be extremely difficult to weaken a standard without someone noticing. And yet the Guardian and NYT stories are extremely specific in their allegations about the NSA weakening standards.

The Guardian specifically calls out the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for a standard they published in 2006. Cryptographers have always had complicated feelings about NIST, and that's mostly because NIST has a complicated relationship with the NSA.

Here's the problem: the NSA ostensibly has both a defensive and an offensive mission. The defensive mission is pretty simple: it's to make sure US information systems don't get pwned. A substantial portion of that mission is accomplished through fruitful collaboration with NIST, which helps to promote data security standards such as the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and NIST Special Publications.

I said cryptographers have complicated feelings about NIST, and that's because we all know that the NSA has the power to use NIST for good as well as evil. Up until today there's been no real evidence of malice, despite some occasional glitches -- and compelling evidence that at least one NIST cryptographic standard could have contained a backdoor. But now maybe we'll have to re-evaluate that relationship. As utterly crazy as it may seem.

Unfortunately, we're highly dependent on NIST standards, ranging from pseudo-random number generators to hash functions and ciphers, all the way to the specific elliptic curves we use in SSL/TLS. While the possibility of a backdoor in any of these components does seem remote, trust has been violated. It's going to be an absolute nightmare ruling it out.

Which people?

Probably the biggest concern in all this is the evidence of collaboration between the NSA and unspecified 'telecom providers'. We already know that the major US (and international) telecom carriers routinely assist the NSA in collecting data from fiber-optic cables. But all this data is no good if it's encrypted.

While software compromises and weak standards can help the NSA deal with some of this, by far the easiest way to access encrypted data is to simply ask for -- or steal -- the keys. This goes for something as simple as cellular encryption (protected by a single key database at each carrier) all the way to SSL/TLS which is (most commonly) protected with a few relatively short RSA keys.

The good and bad thing is that as the nation hosting the largest number of popular digital online services (like Google, Facebook and Yahoo) many of those critical keys are located right here on US soil. Simultaneously, the people communicating with those services -- i.e., the 'targets' -- may be foreigners. Or they may be US citizens. Or you may not know who they are until you scoop up and decrypt all of their traffic and run it for keywords.

Which means there's a circumstantial case that the NSA and GCHQ are either directly accessing Certificate Authority keys* or else actively stealing keys from US providers, possibly (or probably) without executives' knowledge. This only requires a small number of people with physical or electronic access to servers, so it's quite feasible.** The one reason I would have ruled it out a few days ago is because it seems so obviously immoral if not illegal, and moreover a huge threat to the checks and balances that the NSA allegedly has to satisfy in order to access specific users' data via programs such as PRISM.

To me, the existence of this program is probably the least unexpected piece of all the news today. Somehow it's also the most upsetting.

So what does it all mean?


I honestly wish I knew. Part of me worries that the whole security industry will talk about this for a few days, then we'll all go back to our normal lives without giving it a second thought. I hope we don't, though. Right now there are too many unanswered questions to just let things lie.

The most likely short-term effect is that there's going to be a lot less trust in the security industry. And a whole lot less trust for the US and its software exports. Maybe this is a good thing. We've been saying for years that you can't trust closed code and unsupported standards: now people will have to verify.

Even better, these revelations may also help to spur a whole burst of new research and re-designs of cryptographic software. We've also been saying that even open code like OpenSSL needs more expert eyes. Unfortunately there's been little interest in this, since the clever researchers in our field view these problems as 'solved' and thus somewhat uninteresting.

What we learned today is that they're solved all right. Just not the way we thought.


Notes:

* I had omitted the Certificate Authority route from the original post due to an oversight -- thanks to Kenny Patterson for pointing this out -- but I still think this is a less viable attack for passive eavesdropping (that does not involve actively running a man in the middle attack). And it seems that much of the interesting eavesdropping here is passive.

** The major exception here is Google, which deploys Perfect Forward Secrecy for many of its connections, so key theft would not work here. To deal with this the NSA would have to subvert the software or break the encryption in some other way.


Posted by



Matthew Green

at

http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com ... n-nsa.html 11:27 PM

Image


User avatar
Aldebaran
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby DrEvil » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:54 pm

Oh gawd - I can't wait for Monday to come around. It's going to be awesome! Greenwald strongly hinted about industrial espionage. Pair that with Obama being scheduled for six interviews about Syria the same day and you have a beautiful, beautiful shit-storm. :yay
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby conniption » Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:19 pm

Image
Moon of Alabama
(embedded links at source)

September 08, 2013

NSA Breaks Internet, Rewrites Constitution

The Washington Post reveals the next chapter of NSA spying. It invalidates the excuse of "Bush did it":

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.
...
The administration’s assurances rely on legalistic definitions of the term “target” that can be at odds with ordinary English usage.
...
[I]n 2011, to more rapidly and effectively identify relevant foreign intelligence communications, “we did ask the court” to lift the ban, ODNI general counsel Robert S. Litt said in an interview. “We wanted to be able to do it,” he said, referring to the searching of Americans’ communications without a warrant.


The Obama administration secretly amended the 4th amendment to now read:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized unless the government wants to be able to do it.


As we learned this week the NSA also broke all Internet security. If the NSA can break into "secure" connections how secure is your Internet banking? How easy is it for the government to fake "secure" transactions for whatever means?

The NSA can also spy on all smart phone data on iPhones, Android or BlackBerry phones. As we will learn later today the NSA does not only spy against "terror" targets or foreign politicians but also uses its capabilities to achieve economic gains. I suspected all along that international economic spying, not fighting "terrorism", is the major motive for many NSA programs.

The NSA spying undermines trust which is one of the basic necessary elements for communication and economic transactions. It will take a while for this to sink in, but I expect that we will see major changes in how international networks and commerce operate. There will be a strong trend to de-globalize and re-nationalize telecommunication networks and technology. This will extinct the Internet as we know it.

The NSA has stolen the Internet. We need to take it back.

Posted by b at 02:56 AM | Comments (31)
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:00 am

How to foil NSA sabotage: use a dead man's switch


Cory Doctorow
theguardian.com, Monday 9 September 2013 07.25 EDT

Person typing on a computer keyboard
'The deliberate sabotage of computers is an act of depraved indifference to the physical security and economic and intellectual integrity of every person alive.' Photograph: Workbook Stock/Martin Rogers

The more we learn about the breadth and depth of the NSA and GCHQ's programmes of spying on the general public, the more alarming it all becomes. The most recent stories about the deliberate sabotage of security technology are the full stop at the end of a sentence that started on 8 August, when the founder of Lavabit (the privacy oriented email provider used by whistleblower Edward Snowden) abruptly shut down, with its founder, Ladar Levison, obliquely implying that he'd been ordered to secretly subvert his own system to compromise his users' privacy.

It doesn't really matter if you trust the "good" spies of America and the UK not to abuse their powers (though even the NSA now admits to routine abuse, you should still be wary of deliberately weakened security. It is laughable to suppose that the back doors that the NSA has secretly inserted into common technologies will only be exploited by the NSA. There are plenty of crooks, foreign powers, and creeps who devote themselves to picking away patiently at the systems that make up the world and guard its wealth and security (that is, your wealth and security) and whatever sneaky tools the NSA has stashed for itself in your operating system, hardware, applications and services, they will surely find and exploit.

One important check against the NSA's war on security is transparency. Programmes published under free/open software licenses can be independently audited are much harder to hide secret back doors in. But what about the services that we use – certificate providers, hosted email and cloud computers, and all the other remote computers and networks that we entrust with our sensitive data?

Ultimately these are only as trustworthy as the people who run them. And as we've seen with Lavabit, even the most trustworthy operators may face secret orders to silently betray you, with terrible penalties if they speak out.

This is not a new problem. In 2004, American librarians recoiled at the FBI's demands to rummage through their patrons' reading habits and use them to infer terroristic intent, and at the FBI's gag orders preventing librarians from telling their patrons when the police had come snooping.

Jessamyn West, a radical librarian, conceived of a brilliant solution, a sign on the wall of her library reading "THE FBI HAS NOT BEEN HERE (watch very closely for the removal of this sign)." After all, she reasoned, if the law prohibited her from telling people that the FBI had been in, that wasn't the same as her not not telling people the FBI hadn't been in, right?

I was reminded of this last week on a call with Nico Sell, one of the organisers of the annual security conference Defcon (whose founder, Jeff Moss, told the NSA that it would not be welcome at this year's event). Nico wanted me to act as an adviser to her company Wickr, which provides a platform for private messaging. I asked her what she would do in the event that she got a Lavabit-style order to pervert her software's security.

She explained that her company had committed to publishing regular transparency reports, modelled on those used by companies like Google, with one important difference. Google's reports do not give the tally of secret orders served on it by governments, because doing so would be illegal. Sell has yet to receive a secret order, so she can legally report in each transparency report: "Wickr has received zero secret orders from law enforcement and spy agencies. Watch closely for this notice to disappear." When the day came that her service had been served by the NSA, she could provide an alert to attentive users (and, more realistically, journalists) who would spread the word. Wickr is designed so that it knows nothing about its users' communications, so an NSA order would presumably leave its utility intact, but notice that the service had been subjected to an order would be a useful signal to users of other, related services.

This gave me an idea for a more general service: a dead man's switch to help fight back in the war on security. This service would allow you to register a URL by requesting a message from it, appending your own public key to it and posting it to that URL.

Once you're registered, you tell the dead man's switch how often you plan on notifying it that you have not received a secret order, expressed in hours. Thereafter, the service sits there, quietly sending a random number to you at your specified interval, which you sign and send back as a "No secret orders yet" message. If you miss an update, it publishes that fact to an RSS feed.

Such a service would lend itself to lots of interesting applications. Muck-raking journalists could subscribe to the raw feed, looking for the names of prominent services that had missed their nothing-to-see-here deadlines. Security-minded toolsmiths could provide programmes that looked through your browser history and compared it with the URLs registered with the service and alert you if any of the sites you visit ever show up in the list of possibly-compromised sites.

No one's ever tested this approach in court, and I can't say whether a judge would be able to distinguish between "not revealing a secret order" and "failing to note the absence of a secret order", but in US jurisprudence, compelling someone to speak a lie is generally more fraught with constitutional issues than compelled silence about the truth. The UK is on less stable ground – the "unwritten constitution" lacks clarity on this subject, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allows courts to order companies to surrender their cryptographic keys (for the purposes of decrypting evidence, though perhaps a judge could be convinced to equate providing evidence with signing a message).

When the NSA came up with codenames for its projects to sabotage security products, it chose "BULLRUN" and "MANASSAS", names for a notorious battle from the American civil war in which the public were declared enemies of the state. GCHQ's parallel programme was called "EDGEHILL", another civil war battle where citizens became enemies of their government. Our spies' indiscriminate surveillance programmes clearly show an alarming trend for the state to view everyday people as adversaries.

Our world is made up of computers. Our cars and homes are computers into which we insert our bodies; our hearing aids and implanted defibrillators are computers we insert into our bodies. The deliberate sabotage of computers is an act of depraved indifference to the physical security and economic and intellectual integrity of every person alive. If the law is perverted so that we cannot tell people when their security has been undermined, it follows that we must find some other legal way to warn them about services that are not fit for purpose.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:12 am

iSpy: How the NSA Accesses Smartphone Data

By Marcel Rosenbach, Laura Poitras and Holger Stark


Photo Gallery: Spying on Smartphones Photos

The US intelligence agency NSA has been taking advantage of the smartphone boom. It has developed the ability to hack into iPhones, android devices and even the BlackBerry, previously believed to be particularly secure.

Michael Hayden has an interesting story to tell about the iPhone. He and his wife were in an Apple store in Virginia, Hayden, the former head of the United States National Security Agency (NSA), said at a conference in Washington recently. A salesman approached and raved about the iPhone, saying that there were already "400,000 apps" for the device. Hayden, amused, turned to his wife and quietly asked: "This kid doesn't know who I am, does he? Four-hundred-thousand apps means 400,000 possibilities for attacks."

ANZEIGE
Hayden was apparently exaggerating only slightly. According to internal NSA documents from the Edward Snowden archive that SPIEGEL has been granted access to, the US intelligence service doesn't just bug embassies and access data from undersea cables to gain information. The NSA is also extremely interested in that new form of communication which has experienced such breathtaking success in recent years: smartphones.

In Germany, more than 50 percent of all mobile phone users now possess a smartphone; in the UK, the share is two-thirds. About 130 million people in the US have such a device. The mini-computers have become personal communication centers, digital assistants and life coaches, and they often know more about their users than most users suspect.

For an agency like the NSA, the data storage units are a goldmine, combining in a single device almost all the information that would interest an intelligence agency: social contacts, details about the user's behavior and location, interests (through search terms, for example), photos and sometimes credit card numbers and passwords.

New Channels

Smartphones, in short, are a wonderful technical innovation, but also a terrific opportunity to spy on people, opening doors that even such a powerful organization as the NSA couldn't look behind until now.

From the standpoint of the computer experts at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, the colossal success of smartphones posed an enormous challenge at first. They opened so many new channels, that it seemed as if the NSA agents wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees.

According to an internal NSA report from 2010 titled, "Exploring Current Trends, Targets and Techniques," the spread of smartphones was happening "extremely rapidly" -- developments that "certainly complicate traditional target analysis."

The NSA tackled the issue at the same speed with which the devices changed user behavior. According to the documents, it set up task forces for the leading smartphone manufacturers and operating systems. Specialized teams began intensively studying Apple's iPhone and its iOS operating system, as well as Google's Android mobile operating system. Another team worked on ways to attack BlackBerry, which had been seen as an impregnable fortress until then.

The material contains no indications of large-scale spying on smartphone users, and yet the documents leave no doubt that if the intelligence service defines a smartphone as a target, it will find a way to gain access to its information.

Still, it is awkward enough that the NSA is targeting devices made by US companies such as Apple and Google. The BlackBerry case is no less sensitive, since the company is based in Canada, one of the partner countries in the NSA's "Five Eyes" alliance. The members of this select group have agreed not to engage in any spying activities against one another.

Exploiting 'Nomophobia'

In this case, at any rate, the no-spy policy doesn't seem to apply. In the documents relating to smartphones that SPIEGEL was able to view, there are no indications that the companies cooperated with the NSA voluntarily.

When contacted, BlackBerry officials said that it is not the company's job to comment on alleged surveillance by governments. "Our public statements and principles have long underscored that there is no 'back door' pipeline to our platform," the company said in a statement. Google issued a statement claiming: "We have no knowledge of working groups like these and do not provide any government with access to our systems." The NSA did not respond to questions from SPIEGEL by the time the magazine went to print.

In exploiting the smartphone, the intelligence agency takes advantage of the carefree approach many users take to the device. According to one NSA presentation, smartphone users demonstrate "nomophobia," or "no mobile phobia." The only thing many users worry about is losing reception. A detailed NSA presentation titled, "Does your target have a smartphone?" shows how extensive the surveillance methods against users of Apple's popular iPhone already are.

In three consecutive transparencies, the authors of the presentation draw a comparison with "1984," George Orwell's classic novel about a surveillance state, revealing the agency's current view of smartphones and their users. "Who knew in 1984 that this would be Big Brother …" the authors ask, in reference to a photo of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. And commenting on photos of enthusiastic Apple customers and iPhone users, the NSA writes: "… and the zombies would be paying customers?"

In fact, given the targets it defines, the NSA can select a broad spectrum of user data from Apple's most lucrative product, at least if one is to believe the agency's account.

The results the intelligence agency documents on the basis of several examples are impressive. They include an image of the son of a former defense secretary with his arm around a young woman, a photo he took with his iPhone. A series of images depicts young men and women in crisis zones, including an armed man in the mountains of Afghanistan, an Afghan with friends and a suspect in Thailand.

No Access Necessary

All the images were apparently taken with smartphones. A photo taken in January 2012 is especially risqué: It shows a former senior government official of a foreign country who, according to the NSA, is relaxing on his couch in front of a TV set and taking pictures of himself -- with his iPhone. To protect the person's privacy, SPIEGEL has chosen not to reveal his name or any other details.

The access to such material varies, but much of it passes through an NSA department responsible for customized surveillance operations against high-interest targets. One of the US agents' tools is the use of backup files established by smartphones. According to one NSA document, these files contain the kind of information that is of particular interest to analysts, such as lists of contacts, call logs and drafts of text messages. To sort out such data, the analysts don't even require access to the iPhone itself, the document indicates. The department merely needs to infiltrate the target's computer, with which the smartphone is synchronized, in advance. Under the heading "iPhone capability," the NSA specialists list the kinds of data they can analyze in these cases. The document notes that there are small NSA programs, known as "scripts," that can perform surveillance on 38 different features of the iPhone 3 and 4 operating systems. They include the mapping feature, voicemail and photos, as well as the Google Earth, Facebook and Yahoo Messenger applications.

The NSA analysts are especially enthusiastic about the geolocation data stored in smartphones and many of their apps, data that enables them to determine a user's whereabouts at a given time.

According to one presentation, it was even possible to track a person's whereabouts over extended periods of time, until Apple eliminated this "error" with version 4.3.3 of its mobile operating system and restricted the memory to seven days.

Still, the "location services" used by many iPhone apps, ranging from the camera to maps to Facebook, are useful to the NSA. In the US intelligence documents, the analysts note that the "convenience" for users ensures that most readily consent when applications ask them whether they can use their current location.

Cracking the Blackberry

The NSA and its partner agency, Britain's GCHQ, focused with similar intensity on another electronic toy: the BlackBerry.

This is particularly interesting given that the Canadian company's product is marketed to a specific target group: companies that buy the devices for their employees. In fact, the device, with its small keypad, is seen as more of a manager's tool than something suspected terrorists would use to discuss potential attacks.

The NSA also shares this assessment, noting that Nokia devices were long favored in extremist forums, with Apple following in third place and BlackBerry ranking a distant ninth.

According to several documents, the NSA spent years trying to crack BlackBerry communications, which enjoy a high degree of protection, and maintains a special "BlackBerry Working Group" specifically for this purpose. But the industry's rapid development cycles keep the specialists assigned to the group on their toes, as a GCHQ document marked "UK Secret" indicates.

According to the document, problems with the processing of BlackBerry data were suddenly encountered in May and June 2009, problems the agents attributed to a data compression method newly introduced by the manufacturer.

In July and August, the GCHQ team assigned to the case discovered that BlackBerry had previously acquired a smaller company. At the same time, the intelligence agency had begun studying the new BlackBerry code. In March 2010, the problem was finally, according to the internal account. "Champagne!" the analysts remarked, patting themselves on the back.

Security Concerns

The internal documents indicate that this was not the only success against Blackberry, a company that markets its devices as being surveillance-proof -- and one that has recently lost substantial market share due to strategic mistakes, as the NSA also notes with interest. According to one of the internal documents, in a section marked "Trends," the share of US government employees who used BlackBerry devices fell from 77 to less than 50 percent between August 2009 and May 2012.

The NSA concludes that ordinary consumer devices are increasingly replacing the only certified government smartphone, leading the analysts to voice their concerns about security. They apparently assume that they are the only agents worldwide capable of secretly tapping into BlackBerrys.

As far back as 2009, the NSA specialists noted that they could "see and read" text messages sent from BlackBerrys, and could also "collect and process BIS mails." BIS stands for BlackBerry Internet Service, which operates outside corporate networks, and which, in contrast to the data passing through internal BlackBerry services (BES), only compresses but does not encrypt data.

But even this highest level of security would seem not to be immune to NSA access, at least according to a presentation titled, "Your target is using a BlackBerry? Now what?" The presentation notes that the acquisition of encrypted BES communications requires a "sustained" operation by the NSA's Tailored Access Operation department in order to "fully prosecute your target." An email from a Mexican government agency, which appears in the presentation under the title "BES collection," reveals that this is applied successfully in practice.

Relying on BlackBerry

In June 2012, the documents show that the NSA was able to expand its arsenal against BlackBerry. Now they were also listing voice telephony among their "current capabilities," namely the two conventional mobile wireless standards in Europe and the United States, "GSM" and "CDMA."

But the internal group of experts, who had come together for a "BlackBerry round table" discussion, was still not satisfied. According to the documents, the question of which "additional enrichments would you like to see" with regards to BlackBerry was also discussed.

Even if everything in the materials viewed by SPIEGEL suggests the targeted use of these NSA surveillance options, the companies involved are not likely to be impressed.

BlackBerry is faltering and is currently open to takeover bids. Security remains one of its top selling points with its most recent models, such as the Q10. If it now becomes apparent that the NSA is capable of spying on both Apple and BlackBerry devices in a targeted manner, it could have far-reaching consequences.

Those consequences extend to the German government. Not long ago, the government in Berlin awarded a major contract for secure mobile communications within federal agencies. The winner was BlackBerry.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests