Plain text and html...
..and no, I don't give a fuck about anyone's Greenwald-bashing.
AFAICT he's doing it EXACTLY right. Want Dox dumps? Talk to the
Anonymous children. The ones with more than a 3rd grade vocabulary
MIGHT be able to formulate a coherent sentence on paper.
Also see this thread at a reddit IAMA that greenwald held regarding
the topic. A number of engineering types [scroll down... 'bardfinn']
were speculating based on Greenwald's discussion
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_greenwal
d_and_janine_gibson_of_the/
[...]
On September 5, 2013, [2]The Guardian, the [3]New York Times and
[4]ProPublica jointly reported — based on documents provided by
whistleblower Edward Snowden — that the National Security Agency had
compromised some of the encryption that is most commonly used to secure
internet transactions. The NYT explained that NSA “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 emails, web
searches, internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around
the world.” One 2010 memo described that “for the past decade, NSA has
led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used internet
encryption technologies.”
In support of the reporting, all three papers published redacted
portions of documents from the NSA along with its British counterpart,
GCHQ. Prior to publication of the story, the NSA vehemently argued that
any reporting of any kind on this program would jeopardize national
security by alerting terrorists to the fact that encryption products
had been successfully compromised. After the stories were published,
U.S. officials [5]aggressively attacked the newspapers for endangering
national security and helping terrorists with these revelations.
All three newspapers reporting this story rejected those arguments
prior to publication and decided to report the encryption-cracking
successes. Then-NYT Executive Editor Jill Abramson [6]described the
decision to publish as “not a particularly anguished one” in light of
the public interest in knowing about this program, and ProPublica
editors published [7]a lengthy explanation along with the story
justifying their decision.
All three outlets, while reporting the anti-encryption efforts,
redacted portions of the documents they published or described. One
redaction in particular, found in [8]the NYT documents, from the FY
2013 “black budget,” proved to be especially controversial among tech
and security experts, as they believed that the specific identity of
compromised encryption standards was being concealed by the redaction.
None of the documents in the Snowden archive identify all or even most
of the encryption standards that had been targeted, and there was a
concern that if an attempt were made to identify one or two of them, it
could mislead the public into believing that the others were safe.
There also seemed to be a concern among some editors that any attempt
to identify specific encryption standards would enable terrorists to
know which ones to avoid. One redaction in particular, from the
NYT, was designed to strike this balance and was the one that became
most controversial:
The issue of this specific redaction was [9]raised [10]again by
security researchers [11]last month in the wake of [12]news of a
backdoor found on Juniper systems, followed by The Intercept’s
[13]reporting that the NSA and GCHQ had targeted Juniper. In light of
that news, we examined the documents referenced by those 2013
articles with particular attention to that controversial redaction, and
decided that it was warranted to un-redact that passage. It reads as
follows:
The reference to “the two leading encryption chips” provides some
hints, but no definitive proof, as to which ones were successfully
targeted. Matthew Green, a cryptography expert at Johns Hopkins,
declined to speculate on which companies this might reference. But he
said that “the damage has already been done. From what I’ve heard, many
foreign purchasers have already begun to look at all U.S.-manufactured
encryption technology with a much more skeptical eye as a result of
what the NSA has done. That’s too bad, because I suspect only a
minority of products have been compromised this way.”
NSA requested until 5 p.m. today to respond but then failed to do
so. (Update: The NSA subsequently emailed to say: “It would be accurate
to state that NSA declined to comment.”)
[...]
[14]https://theintercept.com/2016/01/04/a-redaction-re-visited-nsa-targ
eted-the-two-leading-encryption-chips/
--
RR
"You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around
with mine until it worked..."
References
Visible links
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1nisdy/were_glenn_greenwald_and_janine_gibson_of_the/
2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?_r=0
4. http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crack-undermine-internet-encryption
5. http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-usa-security-snowden-intelligence-idUSBRE9850RU20130906
6. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/decision-to-publish-against-government-request-was-not-a-particularly-anguished-one/
7. http://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-published-the-decryption-story
8. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/documents-reveal-nsa-campaign-against-encryption.html
9. https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/464044144906600448
10. https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/464015111913369600
11. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/678573907947966464
12. https://forums.juniper.net/t5/Security-Incident-Response/Important-Announcement-about-ScreenOS/ba-p/285554
13. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/23/juniper-firewalls-successfully-targeted-by-nsa-and-gchq/
14. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/04/a-redaction-re-visited-nsa-targeted-the-two-leading-encryption-chips/
Hidden links:
16. https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/bull.png