Sign in / up

back to article How much did NSA pay to put a backdoor in RSA crypto? Try $10m – report

The mystery of why RSA would use a flawed, NSA-championed algorithm as the default random number generator for several of its encryption products appears to be solved, and the answer is utterly banal, if true: the NSA paid it to. Reuters reports that RSA received $10m from the NSA in exchange for making the agency-backed Dual …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Fill
      Reply Icon

      A different era?

      True, although back then the NSA had a lot more respectability. RSA might have honestly thought the NSA was recommending the algorithm to help protect national interests, not undermine them. It's a bit naive today to ask "Why would the NSA want to work against us to weaken our encryption?" knowing what we know now, but back then?

      8 1
      1. frank ly
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        @Fill Re: A different era?

        I recommed _this_ lock/key system, which I developed, for you to use in your worldwided premises protection system. You have doubts and questions? I'm so convinced that I'll give you $10 million to use it. Oh, I see that you are now convinced that it's the best choice.

        3 0
        1. Jordan Davenport
          Reply Icon

          Re: @Fill A different era?

          I imagine it more went along the lines of "Here's a new encryption algorithm we developed to boost security. If you use it, we'll give you $10,000,000 to cover development costs for inserting it into your encryption products and make implementation worthwhile for you."

          14 1
          1. Fill
            Reply Icon

            Re: @Fill A different era?

            "I imagine it more went along the lines of "Here's a new encryption algorithm we developed to boost security. ..."

            It was a random number generation method (Dual Elliptical). The NSA played on that it was what they used internally. Had nothing to do with the actual encryption methods, but a bad random number generator is going to defeat RSA.

            5 1
            1. Jordan Davenport
              Reply Icon

              Re: @Fill A different era?

              Er, right, I read that. My train of thought derailed when someone else grabbed my attention before I responded. Let me amend that, then... "Here's a new pseudorandom number generator we developed that provides a more random seed than other algorithms."

              Have a vote-up for catching my derp.

              4 0
      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: A different era?

        > RSA might have honestly thought the NSA was recommending the algorithm to help protect national interests,

        And people might honestly have thought that the Tories were privatising Royal Mail to ensure a better service for little old ladies and better pay and conditions for the posties

        3 3
      3. cnd
        Reply Icon

        Honest cryptographic mistake? - no chance

        They removed the existing PRNG and inserted a new one (in exchange for a $10M payment) which they admitted was suspicious (was 1000x slower than normal, and had no security proof - their words, not mine).

        The problem is that PRNG's get SAFER if you add (xor) them together - there is never any reason to REMOVE one.

        They ABSOLUTELY knew they were reducing the security, because they took DELIBERATE cryptographic steps to make sure they did this (removing the secure PRNG, instead of keeping it with xor). No crypto coder would EVER do that without knowing why (which, of course, was that $10M)

        (and, to state the bleeding obvious - the NSA will have made them sign an agreement for that $10M, or else face incarceration, so we will never really know the full truth... at least... not until Snowden leaks it :-)

        0 0
      4. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Honest cryptographic mistake? - no chance

        They removed the existing PRNG and inserted a new one (in exchange for a $10M payment) which they admitted was suspicious (was 1000x slower than normal, and had no security proof - their words, not mine).

        The problem is that PRNG's get SAFER if you add (xor) them together - there is never any reason to REMOVE one.

        They ABSOLUTELY knew they were reducing the security, because they took DELIBERATE cryptographic steps to make sure they did this (removing the secure PRNG, instead of keeping it with xor). No crypto coder would EVER do that without knowing why (which, of course, was that $10M)

        (and, to state the bleeding obvious - the NSA will have made them sign an agreement for that $10M, or else face incarceration, so we will never really know the full truth... at least... not until Snowden leaks it :-)

        0 0
        1. tom dial Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Honest cryptographic mistake? - no chance

          "They removed the existing PRNG and inserted a new one ...". I do not think reports made any such statement. Bruce Schneier's article in 2007 describes the problem with dual_ec_drbg clearly and quite at odds with much of what has been written recently.

          https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_sto.html

          In particular: "Of course, we have no way of knowing whether the NSA knows the secret numbers that break Dual_EC-DRBG. We have no way of knowing whether an NSA employee working on his own came up with the constants -- and has the secret numbers. We don't know if someone from NIST, or someone in the ANSI working group, has them. Maybe nobody does." While it would make no difference as to whether anyone should use Dual_EC_DRBG, it would be interesting to know if anyone has found evidence that NIST or NSA does, in fact, know the secret numbers to enable a back door.

          0 0
    2. ACx
      Reply Icon

      Yeah. What you do is use the word "patriot". For an American its like a magic word that suspends brain activity and relaxes the rectum.

      And no, Im not joking. just look in to American schools. They teach allegiance to the flag like christians teach the good book. American children are literally brainwashed into believing in American supremacy. Such that, if you question that allegiance and patriotism you get a fairly disproportionate reaction. So, to get otherwise decent people to go along with questionable government policies, all they have to do is question their patriotism.

      Frankly, Im surprised it cost the NSA $10M.

      66 5
      1. P_0
        Reply Icon

        American children are literally brainwashed into believing in American supremacy.

        I'm sorry, where in the pledge of allegience is there any mention of American supremecy?

        Such that, if you question that allegiance and patriotism you get a fairly disproportionate reaction.

        Kind of like a TV presenter preferring not to where a poppy on her collar. Just watch the disproportionate reaction.

        4 23
        1. Christoph
          Reply Icon

          "I'm sorry, where in the pledge of allegience is there any mention of American supremecy?"

          The brainwashing isn't in that bit. It's in things like their 'history' lessons, where anything that shows the US in a less than perfect light is sanitised out. They are taught over and over that the US is better than any other nation and doesn't do anything wrong.

          21 2
          1. Graham Dawson Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Want to know a funny thing?

            The pledge of allegiance, veneration of the flag and "the republic" as unitary entity all date from the end of the 19th century and were originally introduced by christian socialists, who wanted to break the bond between the states and their citizens in order to craft the perception of the USA as a unitary nation. At the time, US citizens identified themselves by their state, the state government was their primary means of representation, and the federal government was still a remote thing with little impact on their lives.

            It's amusing that what was once a very left-wing project is now taken as a very right-wing ideal.

            10 1
            1. SleepyJohn
              Reply Icon
              Big Brother

              ... said the spider to the fly

              Those without their heads in the sand can see exactly the same thing going on much closer to the English Channel.

              PS This was a reply to @Graham_Dawson's comment "Want to know a funny thing" - don't know how it got here. However, it sits quite well after the Russian thing.

              1 0

            2. This post has been deleted by its author

            3. h4rm0ny
              Reply Icon

              "It's amusing that what was once a very left-wing project is now taken as a very right-wing ideal."

              Left Wing and Right Wing do not respectively mean 'things we like and things we don't'. Pledging allegiance to the flag is neither socialist nor none-socialist. It's just propaganda and indoctrination, something common to either end of the Left-Right spectrum.

              This is what biased media leads to: attribution of anything negative to the faction you oppose. Racism? Homophobia? These must be things that are Right Wing because I am Left-Wing.

              6 1
              1. Graham Dawson Silver badge
                Reply Icon

                @h4rm0ny

                Notice I made no comment on the "goodness" of the pledge; just that the perception of its political alignment has changed.

                0 0
                1. Tom 13
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: @h4rm0ny

                  It wasn't just the perception but the pledge itself. As originally written there was to God which turns out to be an inherently anti-communist concept. As it was re-written it is a good model for any country to adopt. But then I expect a bunch of militant agnostics and atheists won't quite see why it works.

                  0 4
          2. phil dude
            Reply Icon
            Meh

            unlike in the UK....

            where they had to "invent" a citizenship test to keep the population in order?

            But seriously, a lot of that comes from the reality that America saved the world (i.e Europe) some 70 years ago.

            Its just a shame, that the politics have created such a toxic atmosphere.

            Although the rise in military/industrial complex didn't help....

            P.

            4 14
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: unlike in the UK....

              See, it's true. The US really do believe they helped win WW2.

              In fact the Russians lost 20 times the number of soldiers as the US fighting the Germans.

              Who broke the enigma code? the UK did.

              23 4
              1. phil dude
                Reply Icon
                Pint

                Re: unlike in the UK....

                i was thinking of things like the Marshall plan etc... If you think Europe is in a mess now, imagine what it would have been like without American assistance. Enlightened self-interest it may have been, but we all benefited. The British cracked enigma with help from the Polish and a great deal of astonishing ingenuity. But also a degree of Nazi incompetence. If the Americans had not sent the massive amount of support they did (leased or otherwise), history could have been very different without D-day.

                I got a few thumbs down for saying it, but the American constitution and system of government is a historically amazing human achievement. It was an isolated event drawing much inspiration from the French revolution (via B.Franklin ), and coming "hot on the heels" of the English civil war. But the ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is simply an amazing observation.

                The complete rejection of the farce that was royalty in 1776, is just as relevant today.

                It is just a shame we find ourselves in the short sighted situation that the amazing human achievement of the internet, actually has the governments and trans-national corporations, deliberately making it less useful for the public, to suit their own ends.

                Beer, as it ferments ideas as it quenches thirst.

                P.

                9 8
                1. Christoph
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: unlike in the UK....

                  "I got a few thumbs down for saying it, but the American constitution and system of government is a historically amazing human achievement. It was an isolated event drawing much inspiration from the French revolution (via B.Franklin ), and coming "hot on the heels" of the English civil war. But the ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is simply an amazing observation."

                  Unfortunately one of the reasons it's isolated is that many other countries who established democratic governments found themselves invaded or subverted by the US to put in dictatorships who would be more amenable to doing what the US wanted rather than what their populations had voted for.

                  4 1
                2. ThomH
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: unlike in the UK....

                  "I got a few thumbs down for saying it, but the American constitution and system of government is a historically amazing human achievement. It was an isolated event drawing much inspiration from the French revolution (via B.Franklin ), and coming "hot on the heels" of the English civil war. But the ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is simply an amazing observation."

                  The American constitution and system of government is nothing like an isolated event. It is explicitly a fork of the British system, run locally so as to be answerable to local needs. It was designed to be bicameral with one house that lots of people are elected to and the one house that a small number of people are chosen for by other important people. It uses an adversarial, precedential legal system based on the premise that everything is legal unless explicitly proscribed. It explicitly adopted all British case law up to the cut off. Major political party for the first half century? The Whigs.

                  The British system, of course, directly descends from that imported from Normandy by William the Conqueror in 1066. Ever wondered why we have mortgages, a few of which are puisne, or why civil wrongs other than those arising due to contracts are called torts?

                  Converting Locke's "life, liberty, and estate" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does not an isolated event make.

                  5 0
                  1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: unlike in the UK....

                    Given that one of the main aims of the constitution was to prevent the formation of an all powerful central government in the hands of a few imperial families and largley influenced by religous extremists - I would give it 5/10

                    5 1
                  2. Tom 13
                    Reply Icon

                    Re: nothing like an isolated event.

                    The author may have chosen his specific words poorly, but his point stands. No country before or since has encapsulated in a single document as much liberty for its people as this document did. The French had at least 3 more tries after we created the template and still haven't gotten it right. You Brits improved a bit for a while, then fell into the mistakes of Marxism, which despite Maggie's tenure, persist and cripple your country to this day.

                    Yes, it builds on specific British events and law (most notably the Magna Carta). But it took them to their logical and natural law conclusions and developed a government that until Wilson and FDR largely kept government functions closest to their proper sphere of execution. That the US has since fallen to the same socialist forces as Britain does not negate that.

                    0 4
                    1. ThomH
                      Reply Icon

                      Re: nothing like an isolated event. (@Tom 13)

                      If we're going to stick to America versus the UK, highlighting the existence of the constitution doesn't make a lot of sense because the UK is almost unique in being designed around not having one — the UK has a series of distinct documents that are considered as being of constitutional significance (ie, are not subject to implicit repeal per Factortame) but everything else is up for grabs or dictated by case law. For example, the protection against arbitrary imprisonment in England is the court's ability to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Does that make it any less of a protection? The only thing that stops the monarch from grabbing back absolute power is the certainty of what the public would do as a result. Does that make a sudden switch from democracy to dictatorship somehow more likely?

                      History further shows that the USA has been no faster to gift liberties in practice.

                      In the British Empire, trading in slaves became illegal in 1807 and keeping them at all became illegal in 1833. The USA banned the import of slaves in 1807 but didn't manage to abolish slavery until 1865. So which nation was ahead in liberty?

                      Nowadays the UK doesn't execute prisoners because it learnt the hard way that criminal systems are fallible no matter how many rights of appeal are offered. It has free comprehensive healthcare not just on humanitarian grounds — the belief is that healthcare is a fundamental right — but on purely functional ones: if a significant proportion of your population has worse health then that means you're likely to have worse health too, since many types of bad health are contagious and public spaces are shared.

                      Those are things a European mindset would suggest are advances but with which a USA mindset wouldn't agree. But that's just more evidence that most of the world does not recognise the American norms as some sort of ideal.

                      3 0
                3. harry1867
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: unlike in the UK....

                  The French Revolution came well after the Declaration of Independence (16 Years). Though no doubt the ideas of Voltaire, Diderot et al were in the air.

                  The authors of the federal papers, Declaration, and Constitution were all educated in the classics, read Latin and in some cases Greek. They were well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism, and crafted their foundational documents accordingly. It has been a remarkable success, though in many ways that seems to be grinding to a halt as it did for their ideological forebears.

                  Americans are so immersed in self-love that they are incapable of crediting a person of any other nationality as producing anything of benefit. A simple example: The rotten Phillip's Head screw (an American invention) totally dominated over the Robertson's Head (A Canadian invention). Only recent re-branding as Square Recess after the inventor has been forgotten and patent rights expired has led to Robertson's Head gaining decent market share.

                  2 0
              2. Ken Hagan Gold badge
                Reply Icon

                Re: unlike in the UK....

                "In fact the Russians lost 20 times the number of soldiers as the US fighting the Germans"

                The Russians were *only* fighting the Germans, and didn't lose significantly more soldiers than the other side. Meanwhile the UK and US were also fighting the Japanese. Indeed, Stalin's complaint that they were *only* fighting the Japanese was an understandable one even if exaggerated. The Russians also had a 1000-mile land border with the Germans whereas we had a handy stretch of water, so perhaps this was an inevitable division of labour.

                Then there's the problem of looking at 1940 through the lens of 2013. It is hard to realise that the UK was still a world empire at that time whereas Russia was an agricultural backwater that had only recently discovered heavy industry (and fighting perhaps the most industrially advanced country in Europe). The war effort meant that the post-war world saw the dis-mantling of the UK's empire but the Cold War created the Soviet war machine that most of us were taught to fear during *our* childhoods.

                "Who broke the enigma code? the UK did."

                Well. you have a point there. On the one hand, we had the actual device to look at so it wasn't surprising that our team cracked the code first. On the other hand, the perversion of history by certain Hollywood execs is frankly tasteless when one considers the extent of losses on all sides. Enough US personnel died in WW2 that (one would have thought) the generation of Americans that came afterwards would feel obliged to simply be honest about this period.

                3 0
                1. Thorne Kontos 1
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: unlike in the UK....

                  Yes, we all know the Brits are never wrong...nor should they be chastised for being "brit-centric"

                  just as Americans are "american-centric" in theirs.

                  Brief historical interlude follows:

                  >In 1939, cryptography expert William Friedman was hired by the U.S. Army to work on breaking the Purple cipher. Eighteen months into his work Friedman suffered a mental breakdown and was institutionalized. Fortunately, he was able to make some progress before this and, using his incomplete work, other members of his team were able to make continued progress. A substantial chunk of the code was broken, and even though a Purple Machine had never been seen by American code breakers, eight functional replicas of the Machine were created. Eventually, Purple Machine’s method of encryption was completely discovered. This, however, did not mean that the messages could be broken because the daily keys being used were still a mystery to code breakers.

                  In time, Lt. Francis A. Raven discovered a pattern being used by the Japanese in their daily keys. He noticed that each month was broken into three ten day segments in which a pattern was discerned. With the final touches made to the puzzle by Lt. Raven, the Purple cipher was effectively broken and Japanese secrets were exposed.

                  0 0
              3. James Gosling
                Reply Icon

                America in WW2

                America entered the war after Pearl Harbour, to serve it's own interests not to save the world from Fascism. Whereas Britain bankrupted itself fighting WW2, as a result of the US's late entry into the war they emerged as the new economic world power. And whilst the US loaned money to Britain to help it rebuild (at a favorable rate of 2%) it extracted a lot of other terms, such as Britain giving up most of its territorial claims abroad, access to resources for their heavy industry and lots of other agreements which all added up to a golden ticket for America.

                7 1
                1. Tom 13
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: America in WW2

                  The US entered the war long before Pearl Harbor (note the correct spelling, as the name of a place it is not correct to add the British "u"). The lend lease program and other activities were all part of FDR's foreign policy which aimed to thwart Axis objectives. In fact, you can argue that it was those actions that caused the Japanese to attack Pearl when they did.

                  As to the terms of the agreements, consider it evening the accounts for the mercantilism we experienced when we were a colony.

                  0 4
                2. Thorne Kontos 1
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: America in WW2

                  Having the only intact industrial base certainly helped matters as well. Since then, Americans have learned to be their own worse enemies... A majority elected Barack Obama... twice! (based on snake-oil salesmenship deliverred courtesy of a teleprompter and off stage speech writers.)

                  0 0
              4. Tom 13
                Reply Icon

                Re: unlike in the UK....

                Who threw more Shermans at them than they had artillery shells?

                Oh that's right, the US did.

                Who pumped money into Old Blighty before the US entered the war to keep them going?

                Oh, that's right the US did.

                Who f*cked up while lying to his people and proclaiming he'd secured "peace in our time"?

                Oh that's right another patriotic twit from the UK who hadn't a clue about what he was up against. The same sort of twit who was happy Mussolini had finally gotten the trains running on time in Italy.

                Oh, and as the greatest Army general of all time noted: "You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win by making the other bastard die for his." That this also conveniently eliminated opposition for Stalin was probably only a fortunate coincidence. Not!

                2 7
                1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                  Reply Icon

                  Re: unlike in the UK.... @Tom13

                  I think you'll find that by the time the US got involved in Europe, USSR had pretty comprehensively thrashed Germany. All the valid troops were busy on the East front trying to contain the Russians; all that was left on the West "front" on D-day was a shell of concrete vaguely manned by kids and geezers. The last real westward effort of Germany was the Battle of Britain, which they lost to the Brits.

                  The US did beat the crap out of Japan, that we can all agree on.

                  1 1
            2. RegGuy1 Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: unlike in the UK....

              from the reality that America saved the world (i.e Europe) some 70 years ago

              Only because they helped to fuck up the world ten years ealier. Then they were a naive, insular nation that didn't care about the rest of the world. 70 years ago they were very frightened that a certain soviet threat may remove significant markets for them, so they intervened, having learned their lesson that their nation interest lay in being aware of and manipulating the world beyond their borders. [The UK had done this the century before.]

              Their self interest (as with ALL countries) drove their behaviour. The Marshal Plan and all that followed was singularly aimed at stopping the soviet advancement. Hell, they even told Italy that if it wanted the money (and of course it did) it should not let the communists back in.

              You need to be objective when you think about these things -- take things at face value and you will miss the real reason why they are done.

              1 0
            3. Andy Davies
              Reply Icon

              Re: unlike in the UK....

              ... correction: Russia and America saved the world (i.e Europe) some 70 years ago.

              1 0
              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: unlike in the UK....

                "... correction: Russia and America saved the world (i.e Europe) some 70 years ago."

                correction correction: Britain and Russia saved the world but had to buy in much of the equipment to do it from the US. The US made a huge profit on the deal; indeed the US is the only country to make a profit out of either world war and managed to do it in BOTH.

                When you save the day by hiring mercenaries, you don't normally give much credit to the mercenaries.

                0 0
        2. JLV
          Reply Icon
          Headmaster

          >allegience

          >where a poppy on her collar

          >supremecy

          For heaven's sake, you have the correct spelling right in front of you, in the OP. Additionally, since ragging on Yanks is a well-known Reg pass time, one assumes that defenders like yourself are mostly... American. i.e. it is your native tongue you are butchering.

          If you spell at the level of a 2nd grader who needs to be held behind, do you expect us to pay attention to your arguments?

          'sides it's not like you are making cogent arguments anyway and I mostly agree with the OP. Except that I think the brain off-switch w.r.t. patriotism is present in most countries, with the US just having an unusually potent version of it.

          4 1
          1. Blitterbug
            Reply Icon
            Happy

            re: ragging on Yanks is a well-known Reg pass time

            Think you mean passtime. But I digress; The Reg is a UK site so I s'pose you are largely right!

            0 0
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re: ragging on Yanks is a well-known Reg pass time

              Or even 'Pastime', Not that I would ever wish to criticise.

              0 0
            2. Steve Renouf
              Reply Icon

              Re: re: ragging on Yanks is a well-known Reg pass time

              actually, I think he meant pastime...

              OH! I was a bit late. Someone beat me to it!

              0 0
        3. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Getting a bit circular...

          ...American children are literally brainwashed into believing in American supremacy.

          I'm sorry, where in the pledge of allegience is there any mention of American supremecy?...

          I'm sorry, where in the original post is there any mention of pledge of allegience (sic)?

          4 0
        4. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          "I'm sorry, where in the pledge of allegience is there any mention of American supremecy?"

          The bit where it mentions that America is God's own country. It doesn't take much to then transfer the supremacy of God to his country.

          Ironically, of course, America is far more powerful than the god in question who is a lot less substantial than a submarine full of nukes.

          4 3
      2. Tom 7
        Reply Icon

        When I were little

        and my Dad was teaching at a university in the states, my brother refused to pledge allegiance to the flag wot wiv being english an all and was nearly kicked out of school as a result. It took some serious high level influence to talk some sense into those involved.

        23 0
        1. oiseau
          Reply Icon

          Re: When I were little

          Hello:

          I lived and went to school in the US between late 1966 and mid 1970.

          In elementary school, the class would recite the pledge of alliegance every morning but this was not so in junior high.

          Being only 10, I did it basically because every one else in class did it.

          I recall that one of the first times I did, one of my classmates brought up the question of my doing so in class, as I was not a US citizen. My teacher clearly informed me that was under no obligation to recite the pledge of alliegance along with the rest of the class.

          I understand that this may not have been so everywhere.

          Cheers.

          2 0
      3. Captain Queeg
        Reply Icon

        @ACx - Great comment...

        Very fair commentary, but the next 50 years will knock it out of Americans in the same way the 2nd half of the 20th century knocked it out of the British.

        Time was to many of my countrymen that if it was owner by, occupied by or made in Britain it was automatically sub standard.

        The reality of 50 years of being owned by the Americans has done to the UK what 50 years of being owned by the Chinese will do to the USA.

        9 2
      4. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Reply Icon
        Unhappy

        "And no, Im not joking. just look in to American schools. They teach allegiance to the flag like christians teach the good book. "

        True

        Much as in the Soviet era Russia did the same with Russian school children.

        7 0
    3. VernonDozier
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      I remember reading about this back in the 1990s; and in the days of BBSs. If memory serves me correctly, there was another encryption scheme, similar to RSA called PGP (Pretty Good Privacy).

      There was something that happened back then with the FBI being unable to crack PGP. The inventor was investigated by authorities; I think there was even an international case; Somewhere in Europe, that needed backdoor access. They engaged the FBI and perhaps the NSA also. I think the software developer's name was Philip Zimmerman.

      I think PGP was an open-sourced project (One of the first), the NSA and FBI were unable to crack it, even with the sourcecode. Encryption technologies are protected from export, and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

      So RSA was born as a commercial product, that used some of the PGP technology.

      Most of these types of suggestions occur through standards-bodies. Remember, SSL used to have keys for encryption that were only 128-bits. Then, as technology progressed, the standard became 256-bit, and then 512-bit. Some sites on the internet today, use 1024-bit encryption as well as 2048-bits.

      If memory serves me correctly, the NSA and/or the FBI also had a say in how fast home computers would be allowed to get. I remember reading an article in Scientific American from the early 1990s, where IBM said they had the technology to develop CPUs that run up to 4GHz using RISC technology (competes with CISC; or what Intel/AMD primarily use.) However, this technology was never brought to market. CPUs today, can accomplish similar speeds with multiple cores. Parallel processing makes it more difficult to brute-force decrypt.

      Paired-Key encryption and password technology is one of the most secure. Passwords can be captured using keylogger software, or dictionary attacks.

      My guess is that computer speeds plateaued as a result of Government intervention; and fear that home computers would, in time, have the computing power and ability to break encryption. Around this timeframe, Microsoft also introduced "Trusted Computing Platform". My guess, is the ability to use signed code, would be created as a Government project, and allow desktop machines to continue to advance in technology and speed, while also limiting the ability to use encryption tools.

      Instead, Apple developed a new formfactor- tablets and smartphones and this stunned the industry, when everyone was seemingly collaborating to develop the next speed chips, on a single-core platform. The new iPhones and tablets solved a problem of selling hardware.

      5 13
      1. phil dude
        Reply Icon
        Linux

        correlation...

        I must say the in my pre-caffeine haze, it sound plausible....

        However, they would have banned quantum computers by now, as they really are a threat to these types of algorithms...

        Parallel processing is a one-time cost...and I imagine these algorithms are low communication types...

        So perhaps are right to be paranoid? M$ dreams up trusted computing NOT to stop Linux running, but as an NSA backdoor? I mean 2 birds one stone?

        Perhaps the obvious thing about this whole affair, is we can't trust the government because they don't play by the rules. We can't trust corporations, as they're in it for the cash.

        What's the cold war phase? Trust but verify?

        P.

        5 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like