RE: CDR: Re: Lions and Tigers and Backdoors, oh, my...
Can you document this claim of the existance of 'help fields' in Netscape? I am (to put it mildly) astonished by this claim, and more than a little skeptical. I was aware of the Workfactor Reduction field in the export 'aka International' version of Lotus Notes (which this 'help field' seems identical to), but was not aware of it being included in any other application. If you can document this, I'm seriously interested in following up. Peter Trei Cryptoengineer RSA Security Inc. ptrei@rsasecurity.com
---------- From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:bear@sonic.net] Reply To: Ray Dillinger Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 8:37 PM To: Michael Motyka Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Lions and Tigers and Backdoors, oh, my...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Michael Motyka wrote:
From the article...
Until recently the US government strictly controlled the strength of cryptography in software exported to different countries, in order to protect the government's ability to access and monitor communications data. The regulations were relaxed after pressure from industry but Madison believes that this may have driven the NSA to find ways to carry out surveillance. "They're not going to give in over exporting strong cryptography without getting something in return," he says.
I can't believe that they would voluntarily enter a period of weakend capabilities. My guess would be that he has the event ordering wrong.
Nope, he's got it right.
There used to be, officially, a 40-bit key length limit on exportable software. This made american software products with any crypto capacity ridiculously weak, to the point where anyone concerned about security would not use it -- the software industry was losing to foreign competition, and the quality of the intercepts was going down because everybody was wise to it and nobody who mattered to them was using it anymore.
New policy: The BXA approves export licenses for people who put all but the last 40 bits of the key in the headers or trailers somewhere, encrypted under a key that the NSA doubtless knows.
Not that this is noised about too much. Feature AOL saying "yes, we broke the encryption in Netscape starting after version 4.07..." not bloody likely.
After a little security skirmish with my (now Ex)Bank, I discovered this about Netscape and Internet Explorer; both have "help fields" in their headers that facilitate cryptanalysis of SSL connections if you have the key to the help field.
As far as I know, the same is true of all software that has BXA approval for downloadable status. At least (name deleted -- a friend who works at netscape) confirmed that they couldn't get BXA approval for export, OR get anyone at BXA to tell them why not, except for vague wailing about "security considerations" until someone finally offered to put in a "help field".
Anyway; people concerned about security from ordinary theives can now be reassured because only the US gov't gets the juicy bits, and the Uber-theives at the US gov't are reassured because they are getting the juicy bits again now that most people think US products have "strong" crypto.
Don't get me started on this; I get so mad I can't see straight.
Keywords to search by: "Help field" (in quotes), PKI, NSA, "40 bits" "Netscape" -- It's out there, mostly in smarmy self-congratulatory tones about how "We are pleased to announce that Netscape is working with us and will be in compliance with the Public-Key Infrastructure" by (Date -- I forget the date, but it coincides with the release of Netscape 4.5).
Ray
"Trei, Peter" wrote:
Can you document this claim of the existance of 'help fields' in Netscape? I am (to put it mildly) astonished by this claim, and more than a little skeptical. I was aware of the Workfactor Reduction field in the export 'aka International' version of Lotus Notes (which this 'help field' seems identical to), but was not aware of it being included in any other application.
I've been trying to find evidence of this, too. I've sent messages to self from several versions of Netscape Messenger on Windows and FreeBSD, then examined the headers. I have only a Verisign certificate; possibly the cert source would affect the headers that are produced with signed or encrypted mail. I checked the headers with a Java program I wrote myself, so I could verify that Messenger isn't silently stripping them before display. The only thing that might be the "help" field is "X-UIDL", which has a value of random-seeming characters. Even with that, I vaguely recall seeing something about the intended purpose of X-UIDL, and it wasn't to break the encryption. "Alleged" purpose, perhaps I should say. But my memory of that is very unclear and quite possibly wrong. I, too, am skeptical about the help field claim. I'd be very interested in details. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong@acmenet.net
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Trei, Peter wrote:
Can you document this claim of the existance of 'help fields' in Netscape?
Not directly I can't, at least not without betraying someone. In retrospect, I should've used a nym to make the statement to keep him out of trouble.
I am (to put it mildly) astonished by this claim, and more than a little skeptical. I was aware of the Workfactor Reduction field in the export 'aka International' version of Lotus Notes (which this 'help field' seems identical to), but was not aware of it being included in any other application.
Okay, let's forget what I know from people I don't want to drag into the fire and go through it from the "circumstantial" angle. What does it mean when Lotus Notes has to put a work reduction field in their product in order to get export approval status, and then doesn't talk about it? But lots of other companies who also don't talk about it, with stronger-seeming crypto get export approval status? <you brought it up, you document it...> What does it mean when banks refuse to work with earlier versions of Netscape claiming it's because the security certs are expired -- but when new security certs are downloaded and installed, they still refuse to work with earlier versions of netscape and refuse to tell you why? (This, btw, was what made me suspicious in the first place and why I started digging...) <http://banking.wellsfargo.com/> What does it mean when Lew Giles, even after the rules change to the BXA-controlled system, made a living going around convincing engineers working for american companies to compromise their products' security? With or without knowledge of the companies' execs? <http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9902.html#backdoors> What does it mean when PGP has a "flaw" introduced into its Additional Decryption Keys at the same time NAI is seeking export approval for it? And NAI gets export approval, and then nobody notices the flaw for several years after, and then they go oops, it was just a mistake? <in light of recent news, I don't figure I have to document this one> What does it mean when a CEO who actually can and does review code, so subverted engineers can't seem to get one past him, in a meeting with NSA officials refuses to compromise -- and one of the spooks loses his cool and offers to run the guy over in the parking lot? I'll explain this one to you... it means that spook _HAD_NEVER_SEEN_ anyone refuse to compromise, and had no fucking clue what to do. That's if you buy the "he just lost his cool" story. On the other hand, death threats may be policy and this was just the first time they were needed. And on the gripping hand, maybe it's just the first time it was *reported*. Not very many execs would talk about something like that, and I figure most who've experienced it probably just shut up and gave the spooks whatever they wanted. <Considering your address, I figure you know about this one, so I'm not going to bother documenting it. > Lew Giles and its ilk had to have some kind of bargaining position, and if export approval was forthcoming without subverting security in some way, would have had none. The only way a spook could lose his cool and offer Bidzos a death threat would be if that spook were totally unfamiliar with people not compromising. You may consider me paranoid, but I'm telling you that the case of Lotus Notes was just the one that people found out about. If Lotus had to do that to get export approval from the BXA, then so did everybody else. I do not buy the story that what happened to PGP was an accident; on the contrary, it was just NAI doing what they had to do to get approval to put it up for international downloads, the same as Lotus just did what it had to do. And, I'm telling you now, the same as AOL and Microsoft did what they had to do with the browsers. Ray
To respond to Ray's original message: I'm also intrigued, but skeptical. Ray wrote:
Keywords to search by: "Help field" (in quotes), PKI, NSA, "40 bits" "Netscape" -- It's out there, mostly in smarmy self-congratulatory
I've done the searches and come up with nothing. What URL should I be looking at? I'm quite interested in exposing any wrongdoing here, both personally and professionally. Check out my back articles (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,21810,00.html) for stuff I've written that's relevant here. My PGP key is on the servers; Wired's phone number is in the Washington DC phone book. -Declan Wired News On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:27:07AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
Can you document this claim of the existance of 'help fields' in Netscape? I am (to put it mildly) astonished by this claim, and more than a little skeptical. I was aware of the Workfactor Reduction field in the export 'aka International' version of Lotus Notes (which this 'help field' seems identical to), but was not aware of it being included in any other application.
If you can document this, I'm seriously interested in following up.
Peter Trei Cryptoengineer RSA Security Inc.
ptrei@rsasecurity.com
---------- From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:bear@sonic.net] Reply To: Ray Dillinger Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 8:37 PM To: Michael Motyka Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: CDR: Re: Lions and Tigers and Backdoors, oh, my...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Michael Motyka wrote:
From the article...
Until recently the US government strictly controlled the strength of cryptography in software exported to different countries, in order to protect the government's ability to access and monitor communications data. The regulations were relaxed after pressure from industry but Madison believes that this may have driven the NSA to find ways to carry out surveillance. "They're not going to give in over exporting strong cryptography without getting something in return," he says.
I can't believe that they would voluntarily enter a period of weakend capabilities. My guess would be that he has the event ordering wrong.
Nope, he's got it right.
There used to be, officially, a 40-bit key length limit on exportable software. This made american software products with any crypto capacity ridiculously weak, to the point where anyone concerned about security would not use it -- the software industry was losing to foreign competition, and the quality of the intercepts was going down because everybody was wise to it and nobody who mattered to them was using it anymore.
New policy: The BXA approves export licenses for people who put all but the last 40 bits of the key in the headers or trailers somewhere, encrypted under a key that the NSA doubtless knows.
Not that this is noised about too much. Feature AOL saying "yes, we broke the encryption in Netscape starting after version 4.07..." not bloody likely.
After a little security skirmish with my (now Ex)Bank, I discovered this about Netscape and Internet Explorer; both have "help fields" in their headers that facilitate cryptanalysis of SSL connections if you have the key to the help field.
As far as I know, the same is true of all software that has BXA approval for downloadable status. At least (name deleted -- a friend who works at netscape) confirmed that they couldn't get BXA approval for export, OR get anyone at BXA to tell them why not, except for vague wailing about "security considerations" until someone finally offered to put in a "help field".
Anyway; people concerned about security from ordinary theives can now be reassured because only the US gov't gets the juicy bits, and the Uber-theives at the US gov't are reassured because they are getting the juicy bits again now that most people think US products have "strong" crypto.
Don't get me started on this; I get so mad I can't see straight.
Keywords to search by: "Help field" (in quotes), PKI, NSA, "40 bits" "Netscape" -- It's out there, mostly in smarmy self-congratulatory tones about how "We are pleased to announce that Netscape is working with us and will be in compliance with the Public-Key Infrastructure" by (Date -- I forget the date, but it coincides with the release of Netscape 4.5).
Ray
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Ray Dillinger -
Steve Furlong -
Trei, Peter