December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NSA Chief Counsel in Wired, to appear on AOL
by Richard Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The guy in charge of marginalizing crypto users and privacy seekers for the NSA, Stuart Baker, tries his hand at logical arguments with a minimum of name-calling. Do his arguments stand up? Not really. Note how he avoids the issue of how easy it's getting for authorities to do 'drift-net' fishing - trotting out the tired old 'no new capabilities' line. He also seems to believe that requiring court authorization for wiretaps provides good protection against their abuse (NSA has its own pet court). ------- Forwarded Message Copyright and distribution policy attached to the end of document. FYI. X-within-URL: http://www.wired.com/Etext/2.06/Features/nsa.clipper.html NSA'S CHIEF COUNSEL TO APPEAR ONLINE Stewart A. Baker, Chief Counsel for the National Security Agency and featured writer in WIRED 2.06 will host a Q&A session on the Clipper Chip. He will appear on America Online in Center Stage (from AOL type keyword: "center stage") on Thursday May 26, 1994, from 7-9 p.m. EST. Baker is the NSA's top lawyer and supports the Clipper Initiative. He worked briefly as Deputy General Counsel of the Education Department under President Jimmy Carter. His article "Don't Worry Be Happy" refutes seven myths of key escrow encryption and is a WIRED Exclusive. _________________________________________________________________ DON'T WORRY BE HAPPY Why Clipper Is Good For You By Stewart A. Baker, Chief Counsel for the NSA _________________________________________________________________ With all the enthusiasm of Baptist ministers turning their Sunday pulpits over to the Devil, the editors of WIRED have offered me the opportunity to respond to some of the urban folklore that has grown up around key escrow encryption -- also known as the Clipper Chip. Recently the Clinton administration has announced that federal agencies will be able to buy a new kind of encryption hardware that is sixteen million times stronger than the existing federal standard known as DES. But this new potency comes with a caveat. If one of these new encryption devices is used, for example, to encode a phone conversation that is subject to a lawful government wiretap, the government can get access to that device's encryption keys. Separate parts of each key are held by two independent "escrow agents," who will release keys only to authorized agencies under safeguards approved by the attorney general. Private use of the new encryption hardware is welcome but not required. That's a pretty modest proposal. Its critics, though, have generated at least seven myths about key escrow encryption that deserve answers. MYTH NUMBER ONE: Key escrow encryption will create a brave new world of government intrusion into the privacy of Americans. Opponents of key escrow encryption usually begin by talking about government invading the privacy of American citizens. None of us likes the idea of the government intruding willy-nilly on communications that are meant to be private. But the key escrow proposal is not about increasing government's authority to invade the privacy of its citizens. All that key escrow does is preserve the government's current ability to conduct wiretaps under existing authorities. Even if key escrow were the only form of encryption available, the world would look only a little different from the one we live in now. In fact, it's the proponents of widespread unbreakable encryption who want to create a brave new world, one in which all of us -- crooks included -- have a guarantee that the government can't tap our phones. Yet these proponents have done nothing to show us that the new world they seek will really be a better one. In fact, even a civil libertarian might prefer a world where wiretaps are possible. If we want to catch and convict the leaders of criminal organizations, there are usually only two good ways to do it. We can "turn" a gang member -- get him to testify against his leaders. Or we can wiretap the leaders as they plan the crime. I once did a human rights report on the criminal justice system in El Salvador. I didn't expect the Salvadorans to teach me much about human rights. But I learned that, unlike the US, El Salvador greatly restricts the testimony of "turned" co-conspirators. Why? Because the co-conspirator is usually "turned" either by a threat of mistreatment or by an offer to reduce his punishment. Either way, the process raises moral questions -- and creates an incentive for false accusations. Wiretaps have no such potential for coercive use. The defendant is convicted or freed on the basis of his own, unarguable words. In addition, the world will be a safer place if criminals cannot take advantage of a ubiquitous, standardized encryption infrastructure that is immune from any conceivable law enforcement wiretap. Even if you're worried about illegal government taps, key escrow reinforces the existing requirement that every wiretap and every decryption must be lawfully authorized. The key escrow system means that proof of authority to tap must be certified and audited, so that illegal wiretapping by a rogue prosecutor or police officer is, as a practical matter, impossible. MYTH NUMBER TWO: Unreadable encryption is the key to our future liberty. Of course there are people who aren't prepared to trust the escrow agents, or the courts that issue warrants, or the officials who oversee the system, or anybody else for that matter. Rather than rely on laws to protect us, they say, let's make wiretapping impossible; then we'll be safe no matter who gets elected. This sort of reasoning is the long-delayed revenge of people who couldn't go to Woodstock because they had too much trig homework. It reflects a wide -- and kind of endearing -- streak of romantic high-tech anarchism that crops up throughout the computer world. The problem with all this romanticism is that its most likely beneficiaries are predators. Take for example the campaign to distribute PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") encryption on the Internet. Some argue that widespread availability of this encryption will help Latvian freedom fighters today and American freedom fighters tomorrow. Well, not quite. Rather, one of the earliest users of PGP was a high-tech pedophile in Santa Clara, California. He used PGP to encrypt files that, police suspect, include a diary of his contacts with susceptible young boys using computer bulletin boards all over the country. "What really bothers me," says Detective Brian Kennedy of the Sacramento, California, Sheriff's Department, "is that there could be kids out there who need help badly, but thanks to this encryption, we'll never reach them." If unescrowed encryption becomes ubiquitous, there will be many more stories like this. We can't afford as a society to protect pedophiles and criminals today just to keep alive the far-fetched notion that some future tyrant will be brought down by guerrillas wearing bandoleers and pocket protectors and sending PGP-encrypted messages to each other across cyberspace. MYTH NUMBER THREE: Encryption is the key to preserving privacy in a digital world. Even people who don't believe that they are likely to be part of future resistance movements have nonetheless been persuaded that encryption is the key to preserving privacy in a networked, wireless world, and that we need strong encryption for this reason. This isn't completely wrong, but it is not an argument against Clipper. If you want to keep your neighbors from listening in on your cordless phone, if you want to keep unscrupulous competitors from stealing your secrets, even if you want to keep foreign governments from knowing your business plans, key escrow encryption will provide all the security you need, and more. But I can't help pointing out that encryption has been vastly oversold as a privacy protector. The biggest threats to our privacy in a digital world come not from what we keep secret but from what we reveal willingly. We lose privacy in a digital world because it becomes cheap and easy to collate and transmit data, so that information you willingly gave a bank to get a mortgage suddenly ends up in the hands of a business rival or your ex-spouse's lawyer. Restricting these invasions of privacy is a challenge, but it isn't a job for encryption. Encryption can't protect you from the misuse of data you surrendered willingly. What about the rise of networks? Surely encryption can help prevent password attacks like the recent Internet virus, or the interception of credit card numbers as they're sent from one digital assistant to another? Well, maybe. In fact, encryption is, at best, a small part of network security. The real key to network security is making sure that only the right people get access to particular data. That's why a digital signature is so much more important to future network security than encryption. If everyone on a net has a unique identifier that others cannot forge, there's no need to send credit card numbers -- and so nothing to intercept. And if everyone has a digital signature, stealing passwords off the Net is pointless. That's why the Clinton administration is determined to put digital signature technology in the public domain. It's part of a strategy to improve the security of the information infrastructure in ways that don't endanger government's ability to enforce the law. MYTH NUMBER FOUR: Key escrow will never work. Crooks won't use it if it's voluntary. There must be a secret plan to make key escrow encryption mandatory. This is probably the most common and frustrating of all the myths that abound about key escrow. The administration has said time and again that it will not force key escrow on manufacturers and companies in the private sector. In a Catch-22 response, critics then insist that if key escrow isn't mandated it won't work. That misunderstands the nature of the problem we are trying to solve. Encryption is available today. But it isn't easy for criminals to use; especially in telecommunications. Why? Because as long as encryption is not standardized and ubiquitous, using encryption means buying and distributing expensive gear to all the key members of the conspiracy. Up to now only a few criminals have had the resources, sophistication, and discipline to use specialized encryption systems. What worries law enforcement agencies --what should worry them -- is a world where encryption is standardized and ubiquitous: a world where anyone who buys an US$80 phone gets an "encrypt" button that interoperates with everyone else's; a world where every fax machine and every modem automatically encodes its transmissions without asking whether that is necessary. In such a world, every criminal will gain a guaranteed refuge from the police without lifting a finger. The purpose of the key escrow initiative is to provide an alternative form of encryption that can meet legitimate security concerns without building a web of standardized encryption that shuts law enforcement agencies out. If banks and corporations and government agencies buy key escrow encryption, criminals won't get a free ride. They'll have to build their own systems -- as they do now. And their devices won't interact with the devices that much of the rest of society uses. As one of my friends in the FBI puts it, "Nobody will build secure phones just to sell to the Gambino family." In short, as long as legitimate businesses use key escrow, we can stave off a future in which acts of terror and organized crime are planned with impunity on the public telecommunications system. Of course, whenever we say that, the critics of key escrow trot out their fifth myth: MYTH NUMBER FIVE: The government is interfering with the free market by forcing key escrow on the private sector. Industry should be left alone to develop and sell whatever form of encryption succeeds in the market. In fact, opponents of key escrow fear that businesses may actually prefer key escrow encryption. Why? Because the brave new world that unreadable encryption buffs want to create isn't just a world with communications immunity for crooks. It's a world of uncharted liability. What if a company supplies unreadable encryption to all its employees, and a couple of them use it to steal from customers or to encrypt customer data and hold it hostage? As a lawyer, I can say it's almost certain that the customers will sue the company that supplied the encryption to its employees. And that company in turn will sue the software and hardware firms that built a "security" system without safeguards against such an obvious abuse. The only encryption system that doesn't conjure up images of a lawyers' feeding frenzy is key escrow. But there's a second and even more compelling reason why the key escrow initiative can't fairly be characterized as interfering with private enterprise: The encryption market has been more or less created and sustained by government. Much of the market for encryption devices is in the public sector, and much of the encryption technology now in widespread use in the private sector was funded, perfected, or endorsed by the federal government. And not by accident, either. Good encryption is expensive. It isn't just a matter of coming up with a strong algorithm, although testing the strength of an algorithm can be enormously time-consuming. The entire system must be checked for bugs and weaknesses, a laborious and unglamorous process. Generally, only the federal government has been willing to pay what it costs to develop secure communications gear. That's because we can't afford to have our adversaries reading our military and diplomatic communications. That's led to a common pattern. First, the government develops, tests, or perfects encryption systems for itself. Then the private sector drafts along behind the government, adopting government standards on the assumption that if it's good enough for the government's information, it's good enough to protect industry's. As encryption technology gets cheaper and more common, though, we face the real prospect that the federal government's own research, its own standards, its own purchases will help create the future I described earlier -- one in which criminals use ubiquitous encryption to hide their activities. How can anyone expect the standard-setting arms of government to use their power to destroy the capabilities of law enforcement -- especially at a time when the threat of crime and terror seems to be rising dramatically? By adopting key escrow encryption instead, the federal government has simply made the reasonable judgment that its own purchases will reflect all of society's values, not just the single-minded pursuit of total privacy. So where does this leave industry, especially those companies that don't like either the 1970s-vintage DES or key escrow? It leaves them where they ought to be -- standing on their own two feet. Companies that want to develop and sell new forms of unescrowed encryption won't be able to sell products that bear the federal seal of approval. They won't be able to ride piggyback on federal research efforts. And they won't be able to sell a single unreadable encryption product to both private and government customers. Well, so what? If companies want to develop and sell competing, unescrowed systems to other Americans, if they insist on hastening a brave new world of criminal immunity, they can still do so -- as long as they're willing to use their own money. That's what the free market is all about. Of course, a free market in the US doesn't mean freedom to export encryption that may damage US national security. As our experience in World War II shows, encryption is the kind of technology that wins and loses wars. With that in mind, we must be careful about exports of encryption. This isn't the place for a detailed discussion of controls, but one thing should be clear: They don't limit the encryption that Americans can buy or use. The government allows Americans to take even the most sophisticated encryption abroad for their own protection. Nor do controls require that software or hardware companies "dumb down" their US products. Software firms have complained that it's inconvenient to develop a second encryption scheme for export, but they already have to make changes from one country to the next -- in language, alphabet, date systems, and handwriting recognition, to take just a few examples. And they'd still have to develop multiple encryption programs even if the US abolished export controls, because a wide variety of national restrictions on encryption are already in place in countries from Europe to Asia. MYTH NUMBER SIX: The National Security Agency is a spy agency; it has no business worrying about domestic encryption policy. Since the National Security Agency has an intelligence mission, its role in helping to develop key escrow encryption is usually treated as evidence that key escrow must be bad security. In reality, though, NSA has two missions. It does indeed gather intelligence, in part by breaking codes. But it has a second, and oddly complementary, mission. It develops the best possible encryption for the US government's classified information. With code breakers and code makers all in the same agency, NSA has more expertise in cryptography than any other entity in the country, public or private. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that NSA had the know- how to develop an encryption technique that provides users great security without compromising law enforcement access. To say that NSA shouldn't be involved in this issue is to say the government should try to solve this difficult technical and social problem with both hands tied behind its back. MYTH NUMBER SEVEN: This entire initiative was studied in secret and implemented without any opportunity for industry or the public to be heard. This is an old objection, and one that had some force in April of 1993, when the introduction of a new AT&T telephone encryption device required that the government move more quickly than it otherwise would have. Key escrow was a new idea at that time, and it was reasonable for the public to want more details and a chance to be heard before policies were set in concrete. But since April 1993, the public and industry have had many opportunities to express their views. The government's computer security and privacy advisory board held several days of public hearings. The National Security Council met repeatedly with industry groups. The Justice Department held briefings for congressional staff on its plans for escrow procedures well in advance of its final decision. And the Commerce Department took public comment on the proposed key escrow standard for 60 days. After all this consultation, the government went forward with key escrow, not because the key escrow proposal received a universally warm reception, but because none of the proposal's critics was able to suggest a better way to accommodate society's interests in both privacy and law enforcement. Unless somebody comes up with one, key escrow is likely to be around for quite a while. That's because the only alternative being proposed today is for the government to design or endorse encryption systems that will cripple law enforcement when the technology migrates -- as it surely will -- to the private sector. And that alternative is simply irresponsible. For more information on the Clipper standard you can access WIRED's Clipper archive via the following WIRED Online services. * WIRED Infodroid e-mail server: Send e-mail to infodroid(a)wired.com containing the words "send clipper/index" on a single line inside the message body. * WIRED Gopher: Gopher to gopher.wired.com and select "Clipper Archive." * WIRED on World Wide Web: http://www.wired.com select "Clipper Archive." * WIRED on America Online: The keyword is WIRED. * WIRED on the Well: Type "go wired" from any "OK" prompt. _________________________________________________________________ Stewart A. Baker is the National Security Agency's top lawyer. He worked briefly as Deputy General Counsel of the Education Department under President Jimmy Carter, and he practiced international law at Steptoe & Johnson, in Washington, DC. He has been at the NSA since 1992. _________________________________________________________________ WIRED Online Copyright Notice Copyright 1993,4 Ventures USA Ltd. All rights reserved. This article may be redistributed provided that the article and this notice remain intact. This article may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from Wired Ventures, Ltd. If you have any questions about these terms, or would like information about licensing materials from WIRED Online, please contact us via telephone (+1 (415) 904 0660) or email (info(a)wired.com) WIRED and WIRED Online are trademarks of Wired Ventures, Ltd. ------- End of Forwarded Message

3 2

Case law re ITAR and export control
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been reading more about export controls, and found these cases which may be of interest: US v Elder, 579 F.2d 516 (9th Cir, 1978). Prohibition on export of technical data includes provision of assistance to foreign manufacturers of items which would be on the Munitions List if manufactured domestically. This prohibition does not interfere with First Amend. free speech protection when narrowly interpreted to apply only to tech. data "significantly and directly related" to items on the Munitions List. Conviction under 22 USCA 1934 (since repealed, but similar to 22 USCA 2778, which applies now) requires that where tech data has both military and nonmilitary uses, prosecution must establish accused knew or had reason to know of its application towards a prohibited purpose. US v Van Hee, 531 F.2d 354 (6th Cir, 1976). Personal knowledge can constitute "technical data" for purposes of regulations restricting export of munitions. Exemption applying to "public domain" technical data applies only to technical data in published form. Exemption for public domain tech data must be claimed at time of export, not at trial, and package/letter must be marked as claimed exempt. US v. Donas-Botto, 363 F.Supp 191 (E.D.Mich, S.D. 1973). "Technical data" as used in the ITAR includes "technical knowledge", and its transmission is not protected by the First Amendment. The US also claims the right to prosecute for violations of the ITAR committed by non-citizens while located in foreign countries, even where the subject matter is owned by a foreign government. See US v Evans, 667 F.Supp 974 (S.D.N.Y, 1987) for a chilling story indeed. I'm going to be on vacation for a few weeks, and probably won't be checking the list; in order to avoid misunderstanding, the summaries above are my own and I believe they're accurate. I haven't found anything which overturns or disagrees with the above. My own ideas about "freedom of speech" don't match the above, but that's probably not surprising. My questions about the above: o When does export take place? When the technical data leaves the country, or when it is transferred to a foreign party? (my guess is the latter, at least with respect to "technical knowledge") o Do I need a license from the State Department if I know how to do RSA and I want to go bar-hopping in Tijuana? (just kidding, but there's a real question in there somewhere.) Discussion on the list about export regulation has focussed on violations of the ITAR; but prosecution is also possible under 22 USC 2778, with maximum penalties of $1M and 10 years in prison. Ouch. If there's going to be an LA-area C-punks meeting, will someone please send E-mail? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLdKAqX3YhjZY3fMNAQEXWQP9H+WGzXZYki4BXYJI1C4dYQItXHIxAj/9 rKpu5qvnLk3F/cG+vwBB7d6C9g/hRAJQwYSxw1OEI/GG4Es6rqDmpaD7oQeu+mX0 IV/B89gUQuP/YbARLlgH2nTbpxk8gXNQnRDXQlhjJzIzs+yiRGrL9ggTNfNTYh9R AOkTBh7aRTg= =/0G2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: NSA Cheif Counsel in Wired (Rebuttal)
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A little further along in the AP story on the record level of Clinton Administration wire taps, Micheal J. Sniffen states: In a section on surveillances completed in 1993, the report said the longest and most expensive federal eavesdropping was accomplished by a microphone placed inside a New Jersey lawyer's office in a racketeering case. The microphone actually operated 435 days, overhearing a total of 65 people, at a cost of $517,673. ...The government said in court, "the purpose of utilizing the law offices ... was to evade electronic surveillance by fraudulently creating the appearance that these were legally proper meetings." This microphone recorded conversations in the office, not the telephone. As I stated to Dr. Dorthy Denning of Georgetown University, escrowed encryption is unnecessary for surveillance. In addition to "bugs", intellegence agencies also provide long range listening technology to the enforcement agencies like the FBI and DEA. Organized criminals don't use the phone to discuss business, it can be tapped. This sort of blows a hole in Stuart Baker's arguments for escrowed encryption being necessary in law enforcement. The next time he offends someone with his tired trig joke, I would hope that he is ask to rebut this. As well as to estimate how many conversations and participants are actually involved in the given figure of 333 1993 "wiretaps." Long range listening was found to fall under federal "wiretap" rules in the Smalldone case in Denver during the summer of 1982. Try to FOIA that info. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLdKerV/ScHuGXWgVAQFziAQAuYTNTKjaqTWaOO3C42yKCWLM7+kU1gXp 4sGxHGQKfsDP333zLNA+ETGuVfs6si5YQVbsnlGVdS/v36oZp8bUj/8MgWYKLj66 1jRNf4mPl0Mb5LL7InrUwjKCqmOb/GLuHK7F0cHzZbsBE2FkmIqi27AcgJ/8nMxl lFiBbzWrBk4= =I+yV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

MIT cypher talk
by Alan Wexelblat 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[email joanne(a)theory.lcs.mit.edu for more info] > Thursday, May 19, 1994 > Refreshments at 4:00pm, Talk at 4:15pm in NE43-518 > > ``A Minimal Model for Secure Computation'' > by Uriel Feige > Weizmann Institute > > ABSTRACT > >We consider a minimal scenario for secure computation: Parties $A$ and >$B$ have private inputs $x$ and $y$ and a shared random string $r$. >$A$ and $B$ are each allowed to send a single message to a third party >$C$, from which $C$ is to learn the value of $f(x,y)$ for some >function $f$, but nothing else. We show that this model is >surprisingly powerful: every function $f$ can be securely computed in >this fashion. If the messages are required to be of polynomial size, >then we exhibit an efficient protocol for any function $f$ computable >in nondeterministic logspace. Using a computational notion of >security, we exhibit efficient protocols for any polynomial-time >computable function $f$, assuming the existence of one-way functions. >The above results generalize to the case where there are more than two >parties with private inputs. > >The minimalistic nature of our model makes it easy to transform >positive results achieved in our model to other more general models of >secure computation. It also gives hope for lower-bound proofs. We >give an alternative characterization of our model in terms of graph >embeddings, and use this to show that for most Boolean functions on >$\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^n$, the need to hide just one of the input >bits from $C$ requires a communication overhead of $n$ bits. \medskip > >Joint work with Joe Kilian and Moni Naor. > >Host: Michel Goemans

1 0

NSA's Baker to debate key escrow live on AOL, May 26
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

________ begin fwd ________ NSA'S CHIEF COUNSEL TO APPEAR ONLINE Stewart A. Baker, Chief Counsel for the National Security Agency and featured writer in WIRED 2.06 will host a Q&A session on the Clipper Chip. He will appear on America Online in Center Stage (from AOL type keyword: "center stage") on Thursday May 26, 1994, from 7-9 p.m. EST. Baker is the NSA's top lawyer and supports the Clipper Initiative. He worked briefly as Deputy General Counsel of the Education Department under President Jimmy Carter. His article "Don't Worry Be Happy" refutes seven myths of key escrow encryption and is a WIRED Exclusive. ______ end fwd __________ [NOTE: chances are that's actually EDT not EST.] -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

Smart cards
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought you might want to see this. It does talk about the clipper so I hope people will note mind seeing it posted here... I hadn't thought things could get this bad... sigh... -lile ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lile Elam | "Remember... No matter where you go, there you are." lile(a)netcom.com | Un*x Admin / Artist | Buckaroo Banzai ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: NSA Chief Counsel in Wired, to appear on AOL
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "Jim Sewell" <jims(a)Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM> > ><In mail Richard Johnson said:> >> >[.. the public sector] >> drafts along behind the government, adopting government standards on >> the assumption that if it's good enough for the government's >> information, it's good enough to protect industry's. > > But Clipper NEVER claimed to be good enough for the government's info! > As far as I know the description was that it was to be used for "sensitive > but not classified info" and as such it's not good enough for the REAL > secrets. In the interest of keeping weak arguments from being battered down latter, it is entirely possible that the cryptographic algorithm used in clipper (SKIPJACK) is identical to that found in the CCEP type 1 devices (KG-84, STU-IIIs, KY-57/8s, etc.). What may make the clipper chip unsuited for classified traffic is that it is not type 1 certified (control processor code reviewed, failure mode analysis, etc.) and does not require centralized key distribution - the clipper chips have the ability to have the correct Cryptographic Check Word (CCW) read back when attempting to load a home grown key, Type 1 devices simply go to an error state, insisting that only 'state sponsored' keys be used. What is involved is the encryption of a known plaintext pattern, the resulting ciphertext is subsampled (3 bytes), which is the CCW. (It is almost a certainty that if the crypto algorithm in clipper were identical, that the plaintext values are different.) The lack of rigidly checked hardware implementations, and screening of the keys could be the major differences between a clipper chip and one for classified traffic. One of the CCEP crypto modules is supposed to have unit IDs embedded in transmissions, and most of them do remote rekeying, which may have been subborned for the remainder of the LEAF. The check word in the LEAF fits in nicely with checking the validity of a new key received from the distant end. The unit ID is required for a centralized key distribution scheme. In other words it may not be that the cryptographic algorithm is not good enough to protect classified data, rather that the key selection process and hardware implementation are not certified for classified data. One can image that this could be told to certain elected representatives in classified briefings, and used to discount this one argument, and by extension other arguments. One should be willing to stipulate that the cryptographic algorithm is not the weakness, rather that the escrow aspect is what is objectionable.

1 0

Re: NSA Cheif Counsel in Wired (Rebuttal) (fwd)
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: Subject: Re: NSA Cheif Counsel in Wired (Rebuttal) Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 14:26:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Davis <eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com> To: eff-activists(a)eff.org (eff-activists mailing list) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A little further along in the AP story on the record level of Clinton Administration wire taps, Micheal J. Sniffen states: In a section on surveillances completed in 1993, the report said the longest and most expensive federal eavesdropping was accomplished by a microphone placed inside a New Jersey lawyer's office in a racketeering case. The microphone actually operated 435 days, overhearing a total of 65 people, at a cost of $517,673. ...The government said in court, "the purpose of utilizing the law offices ... was to evade electronic surveillance by fraudulently creating the appearance that these were legally proper meetings." This microphone recorded conversations in the office, not the telephone. As I stated to Dr. Dorthy Denning of Georgetown University, escrowed encryption is unnecessary for surveillance. In addition to "bugs", intellegence agencies also provide long range listening technology to the enforcement agencies like the FBI and DEA. Organized criminals don't use the phone to discuss business, it can be tapped. This sort of blows a hole in Stuart Baker's arguments for escrowed encryption being necessary in law enforcement. The next time he offends someone with his tired trig joke, I would hope that he is ask to rebut this. As well as to estimate how many conversations and participants are actually involved in the given figure of 333 1993 "wiretaps." Long range listening was found to fall under federal "wiretap" rules in the Smalldone case in Denver during the summer of 1982. Try to FOIA that info. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLdKerV/ScHuGXWgVAQFziAQAuYTNTKjaqTWaOO3C42yKCWLM7+kU1gXp 4sGxHGQKfsDP333zLNA+ETGuVfs6si5YQVbsnlGVdS/v36oZp8bUj/8MgWYKLj66 1jRNf4mPl0Mb5LL7InrUwjKCqmOb/GLuHK7F0cHzZbsBE2FkmIqi27AcgJ/8nMxl lFiBbzWrBk4= =I+yV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace ***** -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

Yet Another T-Shirt Proposal
by perry＠imsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Should I ever run in to Stewart A. Baker, I want to be wearing a T-Shirt that says "I oppose Clipper because I'm a bitter guy who couldn't go to Woodstock". (Actually, something pithier would be nice, but you get the idea. Maybe "Mad at the NSA for making me do my Trig Homework"?) Perry

2 1

Re: Cypherpunks Goals: Bad debate drives out good debate
by Mike Markley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

| | How about auto-moderation? I came up with this idea a while back for | automatically moderating mailing lists. Here's how it works: | | A newsgroup is set up as moderated, and the posts are emailed to the | moderator (as usual). The "moderator" is a mail-to-news gateway that | posts the articles if the author isn't on the disapproved list, and | also automatically cancels articles that don't have the right "approved" | header and aren't digitally signed by the moderator. | | If a person becomes a nuisance, people send their votes in to the | moderator-robot, and it tallies the votes. If within XXX days more thumbs | down votes are received than thumbs up votes, the person is placed on the | disapproved list. | | The main advantage is, it's fast and easy to set up. Comments? Sounds like a very easy scheme to break. Say I suddenly decide that I don't like your posts or Tim Mays posts. I can get you kicked off by using anonymous accounts to say that you're a nuisance. It seems to me that leaving the list open is better than trying to control it. An example of the danger of automation has already been shown on this list. Last week someone unsubscribed everybody using the automatic features of the remailer. I'd rather have access to all of the posts and make my own decisions about the contents rather than have a potential for one aggrevated individual take out some meaningful content because of a personal vendetta. Mike | | Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 ecarp(a)netcom.com 519/824-3307 | Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.3a public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi | If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than | steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever" | | ===================================================== Mike Markley <mmarkley(a)microsoft.com> I'm not a Microsoft spokesperson. All opinions expressed here are mine. ===================================================== |

3 2