- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Re: SMTP is bad, guys (and gals, and other spectrum earth humans)
by coderman 18 Apr '14

18 Apr '14

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Georgi Guninski <guninski(a)guninski.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:55:27AM -0700, coderman wrote: >> >> and private >> industry privacy invasion, as they're both faces of unrestrained > > weird to write this from gmail account :) nothing conveys my contempt for email like gmail! *grin*

1 0

Why didn't Snowden disclose Heartbleed (and others)?
by Lodewijk andré de la porte 16 Apr '14

16 Apr '14

Exhaustive list of possibilities (please extend where possible): A Did not know B Did not care C Felt like it would negatively impact the NSA's (legitimate) functioning D Didn't get around to it yet E Snowden is an unconventional NSA set up F Snowden's documents are not recent enough A, is interesting, as it would show that the NSA has levels of secrecy and secret data that go further than what they had so far. Something above "TOP SECRET" should probably exist, and Snowden didn't find it. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, so it might well be it. B, he might think it's not very interesting. Using 0-days should be old-hat and expected. Disclosing specific exploits would not stop the bleeding, the NSA would just find new ones. He might even consider 0-day hoarding acceptable business, just not the mass employment of them. C, he's often maintained a sort of "I'm coming out to the public with this, but I'm very sorry to hurt the US in a way"- kind of attitude. It would definitely cripple the NSA if he released novel and important bugs. Think of how hard it would be to hack-back at China! D, There's some scheduling going on to maximize impact. He might release the "0-day-exploit list that endangers live as we know it, and the NSA did nothing" later, when attention dies down again. E, Maybe the NSA have become a common thing in popular culture and they dislike their image of being a completely opaque organization with potentially unlimited power. So now they are sharing information about the "outer shell" of the organization, a sort of facade. Meanwhile it seems like the world is crushing down upon them. In a few years their image will be renewed. Everyone will think "The NSA was not that unlimited in it's capabilities and worked very hard. Now that they have rules and limits it will all be okay". And with that a whole new level of FUD will have been achieved. Making people believe they are the evil you know. Of course, this is religious level conspiracies. And of course, that's exactly the level the NSA would start to accept. They're the information and espionage experts. If anyone could pull this off, it'd be them. (Didn't the CIA/NSA own the media? Don't they still? This might be easier than you'd expect) F, I couldn't find exactly to which date his documents go. Heartbleed was merged December 31 2011 (lonely night? sneaky vacation timing?). Assuming the NSA checks patches (ofc they do) they should've found it in Jan 2012. Snowden. Ah. Found it. "reenwald began working with Snowden in either February[113] or in April after Poitras asked Greenwald to meet her in New York City, at which point Snowden began providing documents to them both" That'd be April 2013. He still might've stolen the documents earlier, but who knows?

5 6

Fw: Why didn't Snowden disclose Heartbleed (and others)?
by jim bell 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

From:jim bell <jamesdbell9(a)yahoo.com> From:Lodewijk andré de la porte <l(a)odewijk.nl> 2014-04-15 21:11 GMT+02:00 Cypher <cypher(a)cpunk.us>: This is why I've long been an advocate of total disclosure. I think >the document holders should publish everything they have. After they >do that, they could continue to 'leak release' documents with detailed >explanations for those who are too lazy or too confused by the >documents to sift through them and read them but having a document >dump out there would make the process of disclosure /much/ faster. >The problem is that the general public is very slow to learn. Every step along the way even the wise said things >like "OH! The NSA said A, but they'll never say B!". Then two weeks later the docs show that B has not just >been said, it'd been SCREAMED. Then the word is "But they'll never say C!". Etc. Maybe at some point >people will pick it up differently. >It also fits the media format better to drip info. A new news article every new drip. That makes for a lot more >exposure. If they are going to 'drip, drip, drip' it, they should release it all first in hashed form, so that: 1. We ultimately know we get it all. 2. We know it hasn't been modified from the form it was originally in. Jim Bell

1 0

Obama allows NSA to exploit 0-days: report
by Georgi Guninski 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/14/obama_allows_nsa_to_exploit_0days_r… Obama allows NSA to exploit 0-days: report ==== President Obama considered what the NSA should do if it becomes aware of a vulnerability that could help its activities. His decision led to the creation of “... a broad exception for 'a clear national security or law enforcement need'.” ==== m$ gives the nsa steady amount of their 0days (admitted), not counting the backdoors.

4 3

White House, spy agencies deny NSA exploited 'Heartbleed' bug
by jim bell 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

White House, spy agencies deny NSA exploited 'Heartbleed' bug photoSecurity experts warn there is little Internet users can do to protect themselve\WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and U.S. intelligence agencies said on Friday neither the National Security Agency nor any other part of the government were aware before this month of the "Heartbleed" bug, denying a report that the spy agency exploited the glitch in widely used Web encryption technology to gather intelligence. The White House, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued statements after Bloomberg reported that the NSA was aware of the bug for at least two years and exploited it in order to obtain passwords and other basic information used in hacking operations. The Bloomberg report cited two unnamed sources it said were familiar with the matter. The Heartbleed bug is considered one of the most serious Internet security flaws to be uncovered in recent years. "Reports that NSA or any other part of the government were aware of the so-called Heartbleed vulnerability before April 2014 are wrong," White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement. "This administration takes seriously its responsibility to help maintain an open, interoperable, secure and reliable Internet," Hayden added. Bloomberg was not immediately available to comment. The discovery of Heartbleed by researchers with Google Inc and a small security firm, Codenomicon, prompted the U.S. Homeland Security Department to advise businesses on Tuesday to review their servers to see if they were using vulnerable versions of widely used software known as OpenSSL. OpenSSL is used to encrypt email and other communications and to protect the websites of big Internet companies, including Facebook Inc, Google Inc and Yahoo Inc. The bug, disclosed Monday, allows hackers to steal data without a trace. NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines said in a separate statement: "NSA was not aware of the recently identified vulnerability in OpenSSL, the so-called Heartbleed vulnerability, until it was made public in a private-sector cybersecurity report." Hayden said the federal government relies on OpenSSL to protect the privacy of users of government websites and other online services. "If the federal government, including the intelligence community, had discovered this vulnerability prior to last week, it would have been disclosed to the community responsible for OpenSSL," Hayden added. Hayden said that when U.S. agencies discover a new vulnerability in commercial and open-source software, "it is in the national interest to responsibly disclose the vulnerability rather than to hold it for an investigative or intelligence purpose." Such vulnerabilities are known as "zero-day" flaws because the software developers have had zero days to fix them. In December, a five-member advisory panel convened to review electronic surveillance policy urged the White House to sharply curtail the use of undisclosed flaws and stop undercutting encryption standards. The panel included former White House cybersecurity advisor Richard Clarke. In late February, a senior White House official said the Obama administration was intensively studying both issues. The administration statements issued on Friday confirmed that the review had already "reinvigorated an interagency process for deciding when to share vulnerabilities" on a case-by-case basis. The activities of the NSA have come under sharp scrutiny since former agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked numerous documents exposing expansive U.S. surveillance efforts. Even before Snowden's emergence, former officials, including Clarke, told Reuters that offensive and spying considerations had dominated inside the NSA, causing it to withhold information instead of warning the public about new flaws. Clarke told Reuters Friday that the NSA had not known of Heartbleed. The U.S. government warned banks and other businesses on Friday to be on alert for hackers seeking to steal data exposed by the bug, as a German programmer who volunteered with OpenSSL took responsibility for inadvertently launching the security crisis. (Additional reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

6 6

Home-made communications and security technology
by John Preston 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

Given the enormous complexity of modern technology (100+ KLOC software projects, 1+ billion transistor CPUs, etc.) I view security failures to be an inevitability: the attack surface is rich for exploitation by enemies, and bugs and errors constantly emerge due to both man and machine. That said, I do not think it unwise to consider it a prerequisite for the most paranoid-level technologies that they be easily understandable and scrutinisable by individual people. Hence, I have an interest in pen-and-paper ciphers, simple wireless communications systems for Morse, voice, and data, and simple computers. Is this something other people think is a sensible or important line of inquiry? Do these technologies and the people using them exist? Are there movements advocating this approach? Thank you.

2 1

a speech
by dan＠geer.org 14 Apr '14

14 Apr '14

Perhaps of relevance here. APT in a World of Rising Interdependence invited address, NSA, 26 March 2014 http://geer.tinho.net/geer.nsa.26iii14.txt --dan

3 3

Re: [cryptome] Re: snowman news
by John Young 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

Dear Maligned Ethicist Machet, Your fee for complaining about star *ucking has been transmitted to Hettinga's offshore dark pool of smegma. We appreciate your disclosing this private banking arrangement to encourage others to reap the benefits of advertising online the ancient love scribble scratched on rubber tree trunks, on kindergarten desktops, on unisex toilet stalls and distributed by porous-sheathed onion routers to mind*uck horny espionage pornsters posting and ogling kiddie-selfies for entrapment bonuses. Underarmored in *uck cpunks tees. @20Committee At 01:17 PM 4/13/2014, you wrote: >have not been more disappointed by star *ucking in i dont know when > >hardens my resolve to never align with any mother *ucker > >only align with ethics

4 4

Re: snowman news
by John Young 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

Great that Snowden is getting another chance to speak for himself, as available on an awfully restricted technical tube-like forum -- so far only talking head shots at the venues where he has been beamed in from who knows where, scripted by who knows who from his burgeoning team of handlers, now joined by EU polopportunists. It would be even greater if if Snowden himself released or at least displayed documents beside his head or encouraged the withholders to do so as the surcharge for their exclusive rigging of ever fewer releases. Head shotting and paneling by and about Snowden seems to have substituted for release of documents needed for us to reach our own conclusions. Entertainment over information. Oh well, that condescension is how media, politicians and governments manipulate us ignorant consumers of produce. Thanks for keeping us alert to EU produce. Regards, John At 07:22 PM 4/7/2014, you wrote: >http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/snowden-to-address-europ >e-rights-watchdog/story-fni0xqlk-1226877345106 > >Snowden testifies: >Council of Europe Live video link: Tuesday, 12 noon GMT: >http://webtv.coe.int/index.php?CategoryID=56763&SubCategoryID=56776 >Link will be active 30 minutes before event.

4 4

Re: [tor-talk] [cryptography] The Heartbleed Bug is a serious vulnerability in OpenSSL
by grarpamp 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Christopher J. Walters <cwal989(a)comcast.net> > > It makes me wonder if the NSA was involved in inserting this bug into > OpenSSL clients and servers. That would be 2+ years of amazing win on NSA part [1]. Any unlikely impropriety would come out soon. More likely reality... opensource people are busy and good humans and coding mistakes happen. Hopefully the general buzz around NSA/security/crypto/decentral will result dedicating more permanent resource to things like protocol devel and replacements, and auditing of key underlying software code. You really need to be asking if and how the giant for-profit corps that use opensource for free are giving back. $50k a year donated to fund an independant developer pool from the OSS community to sit on the teams of your favorite code projects of choice as auditors is nothing to a companies like that, a dream gig for the dev, a win for project, and good company PR. How often do you see @ge.com @chase.com @ibm.com, etc on developer/donation lists... you need to ask those type of @'s if, how, and why not. [1] And pretty dumb of any attacker to not simply quietly watch, analyse and exploit the committed output of any critical project... no insertion, cost, or risk necessary to do that.

12 29