For those who missed it: Hushmail is pwnd
Hushmail and DEA have an "MLAT" ("Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty")??? Wow. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 00:01:41 -0600 From: travis+ml-cryptography@subspacefield.org To: auto37159@hushmail.com Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com Subject: Re: Hushmail in U.S. v. Tyler Stumbo On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:27:53PM -0400, auto37159@hushmail.com wrote:
I stumbled across this filing: http://static.bakersfield.com/smedia/2007/09/25/15/steroids.source.p rod_affiliate.25.pdf
I probably shouldn't say anything about this, but whoever made this PDF failed to properly redact the personal information in #10, just like the NYT failed to do with the names of the people who helped the US in Iran. I can simply switch desktops and see the numbers underneath before the rectangles are drawn over them (possibly on another layer). Actually the box on #14 seems to work, possibly because it is larger, or was done differently.
What I found interesting was: 1. The amount of data which Hushmail was required to turn over to the US DEA relating to 3 email addresses. 3 + 9 = 12 CDs What kind of and for what length of time does Hushmail store logs?
You would think that they would store the minimum or none, so that they didn't have to answer such requests. In the US, companies can require compensation for resources spent filling these requests, but many do not for fear of increased scrutiny by law enforcement. I have been around when my department at a Usenet server had to fill these kinds of requests on posts from people selling GHB or something like that. They pretty much write their subpoenas as wide as possible, pretty much "any record you have about..." and then they give you every relevant piece of identifying information they have. I think you have to swear under penalty that you got them everything. Sorry bro.... IIRC, there were laws passed in Europe dictating minimum retention times for ISPs and such. They may have been passed in Canada and the US as well. I guess the legal theory is that when a business offers services to the public they give up some rights over private property. Probably they did the minimum work to comply, which means that the CDs are either mostly empty, or full of unrelated data.
2. That items #5 and #15 indicated that the _contents_ of emails between several Hushmail accounts were "reviewed".
Yep.
3. The request was submitted to the ISP for IP addresses related to a specific hushmail address (#9). How would the ISP be able to link a specific email address to an IP when Hushmail uses SSL/TLS for both web and POP3/IMAP interfaces?
It appears he used IP addresses gathered from #4.
Since email between hushmail accounts is generally PGPed. (That is the point, right?) And the MLAT was used to establish probable cause, I assume that the passphrases were not squeezed out of the plaintiff. How did the contents get divulged?
My guess is that Hushmail has had subpoenas before and had to develop and install a modified java applet which captures the passphrase when the user enters it. With that and the stored keys, it can decrypt all the stored communications. If that's true, I wouldn't expect them to trumpet it, since it would mostly negate their value proposition. -- Life would be so much easier if it was open-source. URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ Eff the ineffable! For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email john@subspacefield.org.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 06:43:02AM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Hushmail and DEA have an "MLAT" ("Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty")???
Wow.
Sweet syphillitic Jeebus! I have *got* to stop glossing over the stuff in comp.encryption.general. I saw a bunch of items on this go by, but didn't see the MLAT mentioned in the headlines. (maybe RSS isn't all that great?) Note that the MLAT is actually between the US and Canada, and according to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_690.html, it's been in effect since Jan. 24, 1990. So while Hushmail is pwned, it's pwned by Canada, which is in turn pwned by the US. But then, a difference which makes no difference isn't really a difference. I'm just glad I never used/trusted Hush. -- Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not "A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy." - Guy Fawkes http://www.rant-central.com
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 06:43:02AM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Hushmail and DEA have an "MLAT" ("Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty")???
Wow.
Sweet syphillitic Jeebus! I have *got* to stop glossing over the stuff in comp.encryption.general. I saw a bunch of items on this go by, but didn't see the MLAT mentioned in the headlines. (maybe RSS isn't all that great?)
Note that the MLAT is actually between the US and Canada, and
This is clearly something I missed - and the "MLAT" term was what set of my "Holy Shit" sensor.
according to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_690.html, it's been in effect since Jan. 24, 1990. So while Hushmail is pwned, it's pwned by Canada, which is in turn pwned by the US. But then, a difference which makes no difference isn't really a difference. I'm just glad I never used/trusted Hush.
I am shocked that Hush appears to have been in a position to have provided the requesting authority with actual *content* of a Hush user account: my prior belief was that this was non-possible. The pwnage of this alone is staggering in scope if correct. Anyone from Hush care to entertain us with an explanation of why this interpretation is incorrect? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
J.A. Terranson wrote:
I am shocked that Hush appears to have been in a position to have provided the requesting authority with actual *content* of a Hush user account: my prior belief was that this was non-possible. The pwnage of this alone is staggering in scope if correct. Anyone from Hush care to entertain us with an explanation of why this interpretation is incorrect?
I suspect given the circumstances (i.e. using hushmail as an smtp endpoint for web orders) a large proportion of the mail will be normal unencrypted SMTP rather than hush2hush traffic or conventionally openpgp encrypted from outside the system (I have extracted keys for conventional crypto on occasion from the hushmail web interface, but doing so on a regular basis is like pulling teeth)
Now, how do we know which key distribution authority
and which certifying authority to trust? Isn't this
going to be a problem? Trust doesn't seen to work as
well as it used to.
Sarad.
--- Dave Howe
I am shocked that Hush appears to have been in a
the requesting authority with actual *content* of a Hush user account: my prior belief was that this was non-possible. The
J.A. Terranson wrote: position to have provided pwnage of this alone is
staggering in scope if correct. Anyone from Hush care to entertain us with an explanation of why this interpretation is incorrect?
I suspect given the circumstances (i.e. using hushmail as an smtp endpoint for web orders) a large proportion of the mail will be normal unencrypted SMTP rather than hush2hush traffic or conventionally openpgp encrypted from outside the system (I have extracted keys for conventional crypto on occasion from the hushmail web interface, but doing so on a regular basis is like pulling teeth)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Sarad AV wrote:
Now, how do we know which key distribution authority and which certifying authority to trust? Isn't this going to be a problem? Trust doesn't seen to work as well as it used to.
Trust has *never* worked in that sense - the WoT only really works inside strongly connected sets (less than one in five of keys I have obtained from the pgp keyservers have a signature from someone I would trust to introduce people to me) and commercial CAs have always been both lax in their checking (although a *little* more than "the check clears") and happy to "co-operate" with law enforcement requests. However, in a more limited sense, trust *does* work - I can rely on keys I have checked myself, and have a limited number of people spread across the world whose signatures I will trust to indicate they have done the required checking themselves. Of course, now that the commonly accepted hashes are suspect, I have to wonder about the viable lifespan of a signed key...
I think this is actually the tip of an iceberg that extends in a lot of directions. What about Sarbannes-Oxley? This is complied to overseas. And we now have the US "DoJ" in effect creating laws by ordering disposal holds on all documents, digital or not, in case they want to make a query or two. So the US is already pwn-ing the international financial community. Oddly, however, the confidence in the dollar is sinking, so perhaps that same international financial community is developing antibodies... -TD
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:45:17 -0600 From: measl@mfn.org To: roy@rant-central.com CC: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Re: For those who missed it: Hushmail is pwnd
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 06:43:02AM -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Hushmail and DEA have an "MLAT" ("Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty")???
Wow.
Sweet syphillitic Jeebus! I have *got* to stop glossing over the stuff in comp.encryption.general. I saw a bunch of items on this go by, but didn't see the MLAT mentioned in the headlines. (maybe RSS isn't all that great?)
Note that the MLAT is actually between the US and Canada, and
This is clearly something I missed - and the "MLAT" term was what set of my "Holy Shit" sensor.
according to http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_690.html, it's been in effect since Jan. 24, 1990. So while Hushmail is pwned, it's pwned by Canada, which is in turn pwned by the US. But then, a difference which makes no difference isn't really a difference. I'm just glad I never used/trusted Hush.
I am shocked that Hush appears to have been in a position to have provided the requesting authority with actual *content* of a Hush user account: my prior belief was that this was non-possible. The pwnage of this alone is staggering in scope if correct. Anyone from Hush care to entertain us with an explanation of why this interpretation is incorrect?
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin_at_mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF
What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn... ws
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, J.A. Terranson wrote:
My guess is that Hushmail has had subpoenas before and had to develop and install a modified java applet which captures the passphrase when the user enters it. With that and the stored keys, it can decrypt all the stored communications.
I wouldn't be so certain -- getting subpoenas is no big deal for companies. At Anonymizer, I answered lots of them. Most of the time, I couldn't comply. (If you pay for your Anonymizer account with your credit card, and the Feds want to know if you bought an Anonymizer account, well, you screwed up. Otherwise, I told the guy on the phone the truth -- I had nothing in my logs about that IP address, sir. And they went away, quickly and without fuss, unlike when I've had to deal with the same thing as a private remop.) Of course, that was in 2003 and times have changed all around -- I don't think Hushmail was handing out info to TLAs back then either. Possibly, the problem here is Hushmail's move away from using its Java applet as default. (It has two modes now -- securish and securisher, from what I can tell, and the more secure "everything happens in the browser, including all key operations" part is the optional step now. In the less secure case, while I haven't analyzed it yet, I believe the keys in those cases are being stored decryptable on the server. The passphrase is almost certainly passed to the server.) But, also, bear in mind that Hushmail has *always* allowed people to send non-PGP messages, especially to non-Hushmail users. If one party was a Hushmail user, and one party was not a PGP user, then PGP's not going to be involved. Regardless, boo for Hushmail for not disclosing that they were answering subpoenas like this. ... There *are* bigger forces at play, though. The "mutual assistance" provisions of the Council of Europe cybercrime treaty are horrible, as are these data retention laws. These are going to affect companies based in any country signed to that treaty, including the US. Hushmail, in the end, is relatively weak compared to other Cypherpunk tools, and other ways of using them. The big They are trying to make those other tools and uses illegal. Already we have people in the academic privacy field scampering to appease their new masters, and trying to find ways to do backdoored anonymity safely (are you kidding me? We haven't even worked out the kinks with regular anonymity systems.) But in the end, those are academics scared that their field is going to be made illegal, and so their actions are understandable, if deplorable. Likewise for whatever Hushmail may be doing. A statement from the folks over there would be nice. --Len.
participants (6)
-
Dave Howe -
J.A. Terranson -
Len Sassaman -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Sarad AV -
Tyler Durden