- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Fwd: [liberationtech] MS&E 297: Hacking for Defense (New Course Spring 2016)
by Travis Biehn 23 Jan '16

23 Jan '16

http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu/dodic-problems.html "National Security Agency (NSA) To be provided" This incubator for contracted solutions to whatever has provided an world rw google doc for helping Stanford students organize into participatory groups. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oXvCSrFzr2PoIDvOmQPaloJN_JxXFpwXNFl… *Don't do anything disruptive here. +1 to the Palantir employees who are already in it to win it. Perhaps the rest of the project will be conducted on world r/w google drive? -Travis ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Yosem Companys <companys(a)stanford.edu> Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:55 PM Subject: [liberationtech] MS&E 297: Hacking for Defense (New Course Spring 2016) To: Liberation Technologies <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Cc: Kimberly Diane Chang <kdchang(a)stanford.edu> From: Kimberly Diane Chang <kdchang(a)stanford.edu> *MS&E 297 - Hacking for Defense * Solving National Security Issues with the Lean Launchpad Interested in Entrepreneurship? Innovating at speed? Helping to make the world a better place? Working closely with members of the military and government to solve real, important problems? Then consider applying for MS&E 297 - Hacking for Defense. A new class in Spring 2016 with a teaching team led by *Steve Blank *and including *Tom Byers *(Professor MS&E), *Joe Felter* (CISAC Senior Research Scholar), and *Pete Newell* (Managing Partner BMNT Partners). In the class, students will apply the Lean Launchpad methodology to problems proposed or approved by Department of Defense/Intelligence Community sponsors. Some of the problems already approved include: Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief Mobile and Web based App (National Defense University) Distributed, Disposable, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (Commander US Navy 7th Fleet) Virtual Advice and Assistance Toolkit for IEDs (Joint Improvised Threat Defense Agency) Wearable Sensors and Apps for Divers (Naval Special Warfare Group 3) Interested in solving a problem not listed here but potentially related to the government or military? Contact the teaching team. To learn more, visit our website: hacking4defense.stanford.edu To receive updates about upcoming info sessions and brown bag lunches. Join our Facebook group <https://www.facebook.com/groups/1556101194680136/> or sign up on our email list <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZHM-ahQGIIYRCxyS2aP0XgIHwG-NF7oDJuF3LiESQx…>. -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys(a)stanford.edu. -- Twitter <https://twitter.com/tbiehn> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn> | GitHub <http://github.com/tbiehn> | TravisBiehn.com <http://www.travisbiehn.com> | Google Plus <https://plus.google.com/+TravisBiehn>

6 11

Tor Project Crowdsources over $200k, Overall, 75% of funding comes from 'da feds'
by Rayzer 23 Jan '16

23 Jan '16

Just a note for those who weren't keeping track back in 'the day' and think a project's funding source itself affects project outcomes. Abbie Hoffman got the funding for the Cooper Square Free Store, where Yippie!'s plans to disrupt the 1968 Democratic National Convention were hatched, from a YMCA grant for "Youth Services". If you're a 'revolutionary', you're a dead man on furlough anyway and the more people use tor, the more cost-prohibitive it becomes for 'da feds' to stalk them. I consider anti-tor sentiments to intrinsically play into the hands of [insert evil gubmint name here] intel agencies. -- RR "Freedom is the capacity to pause between stimulus and response." ~Rollo May Tor Project raises over $200,000 in attempt to “diversify” its funding /Activist group took in about $2.5M in 2014, mostly from US government sources./ As a result of its recent crowdfunding campaign, the Tor Project announced <https://blog.torproject.org/blog/transparency-openness-and-our-2014-financi…> Thursday that it had raised over $200,000 from more than 5,000 individuals over nearly two months. The organization also released its 2014 Form 990 <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2696858-2014-TorProject-Combined-Fo…>, the financial document that all nonprofits must file with the IRS. As of 2014, the organization took in about $2.5 million <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2696858-2014-TorProject-Combined-Fo…> annually, roughly 75 percent of that coming from grants from US government institutions such as Radio Free Asia and the State Department. Shari Steele, the new head of the Tor Project, told Ars recently <http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/going-forward-the-tor-project-wants…> that the organization wants to diversify its funding and, over time, become less reliant on government sources of income. > "I can't deny that there are lots of people within the Tor community > and lots of people who either are users of Tor or would be users of > Tor who are concerned about the fact that so much of the money—or any > of the money—is coming from US government sources," she said. "But the > reality is that is where the money is coming from. And the > organization needs money in order to survive. So we're going to take > this step by step and try to expand the funding sources and then there > might be conversation about how we do things. But we're very, very > grateful for our current funding sources." http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/tor-project-raises-over-200000-in-a…

1 0

NSA Spy-by-Crypto
by John Young 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

DIRNSA said at Atlantic Council on 21 January that NSA spying ("intelligence") and information protection (IAD) to be meshed. Separation not suitable for current requirement. Outside partners to aid dual tech: spy-by-crypto.

5 4

FOIA: The Hunt For the Government's Oldest Computer
by Michael Best 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

What started out as an attempt to answer a (seemingly) simple question - what is the oldest computer still in use by a government agency - has seen spiraled into a project that touches on issues of national security, record keeping, and finally finding out whatever happened to Zeos. https://www.muckrock.com/project/the-hunt-for-the-governments-oldest-comput…

1 0

US State Of California to Ban Encrypted Screenlocked Phones and Devices
by grarpamp 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

http://asmdc.org/members/a09/news-room/video-gallery/cooper-introduces-huma… https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10949354 (Sacramento) – Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), along with the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office, crime victim’s families, and bill supporters, announced at a state capitol news conference the introduction of Assembly Bill 1681. The legislation will help law enforcement investigate and prosecute suspected criminals and criminal organizations that are involved in human trafficking and other serious crimes. In 2014, cell phone manufactures began providing new operating systems for smartphones and tablets, these new operating systems employ, by default, “full-disk encryption” (FDE). That can be a problem for law enforcement investigators. “Human traffickers are using encrypted cell phones to run and conceal their criminal activities,” said Assemblymember Cooper. “Full-disk encrypted operating systems provide criminals an invaluable tool to prey on women, children, and threaten our freedoms while making the legal process of judicial court orders useless.” Learn more about AB 1681 in this Assembly Access video.

1 0

European Court of Human Rights about Bulk Surveillance aka Big Data aka Massive Monitoring
by grarpamp 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:25 AM, <tor_talk(a)arcor.de> wrote: > Hi Tor Talkers, > > January 13, 2016 > https://cdt.org/blog/did-the-european-court-of-human-rights-just-outlaw-mas… > Did the European Court of Human Rights Just Outlaw “Massive Monitoring of Communications” in Europe? > December 9, 2015 > https://www.justsecurity.org/28216/echr-deals-heavy-blow-lawfulness-bulk-su… > European Human Rights Court Deals a Heavy Blow to the Lawfulness of Bulk Surveillance http://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/01/20/0348233/european-human-rights-court-…

1 0

libreboot not supporting post-2008 Intel hardware?
by Georgi Guninski 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

Got this from some forum. https://libreboot.org/faq/#intel --- Why is the latest Intel hardware unsupported in libreboot? #intel It is extremely unlikely that any post-2008 Intel hardware will ever be supported in libreboot, due to severe security and freedom issues; so severe, that the libreboot project recommends avoiding all modern Intel hardware. --- There are similar concerns about AMD from Joanna Rutkowska: http://blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/x86_harmful.pdf pp 44-45 Is there safe off the shelve hardware and sufficiently powerful? (Don't think android is an option) This is not intended as flamewar Intel vs AMD vs whatever.

3 5

FOIPA Glomar
by grarpamp 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:26 PM, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > a richer annotation of refusals would be useful. Let FOIA do the work for you... Annual count of all queries replied with "can neither confirm or deny / etc". Initial query date, query ID number, and query subject for all such replies.

4 3

Fwd: [whispersystems] Addressing Frustration in the Signal Community
by coderman 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Lanning <sam(a)samlanning.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:16:48 +0000 Subject: [whispersystems] Addressing Frustration in the Signal Community Hi All, I have noticed that there has been some amount of frustration present on this mailing list as of late, and I'd just like to address it as a an observer and member of the Signal Community. The popularity of Signal, and in particular the number of people who want to help get involved in the project, contribute, help influence the future of it etc... has been growing very impressively. We have just under 1000 people on this mailing list (967 at time of writing), multiple PRs and issues are being opened in the repos by newcomers each day, and we have prominent people in the security community (Edward Snowden, Various Tor People, George Torwell [1] etc...) constantly telling everyone to use Signal. It's clear why this is happening, Signal is the only project to have emerged that really has the potential to put a dent in mass surveillance since Tor, and I use the word "only" on purpose here; Yes there are a million different privacy apps / projects that have emerged in the last 4 years or so, and existing tools have been improved (we have the likes of Tox, Pond, Ricochet etc... And OTR and PGP are still going strong), but Signal has always put a very strong focus on Usability and User Adoption, and it's these things that have lead it to becoming as widely adopted as it is, and it's these things we need to continue to focus on more than anything until it becomes as popular as, for example, Whatsapp. This is why it has the potential to put a dent in MASS surveillance. But this is obvious to most of you, in fact it is probably these reasons that have got you so excited about the project, and why we have so many people getting involved in the development of Signal, and contributing in any which way they can. That being said, I feel that the community doesn't realise just how big it's growing, and how that contrasts with the size of the OWS team itself. I have so much respect for them, they are each being pulled in a thousand different directions: development, managing + reviewing contributions on github, responding to issues, responding to support tickets, addressing each of the feature requests that come in (and deciding which ones they can take on etc...), handling PR / marketing / social media, corresponding with large projects that want to get involved and increase growth that drastically change the requirements for the infrastructure, managing and growing the infrastructure itself, managing finances and donations, general admin stuff, and of course... this mailing list. Go have a look at their website, to see how big their team is, and how many people are working on development (and also understand that Frederic Jacobs has recently moved on and the website is yet to be updated)... Then look again at this list of things that they need to handle among themselves. Also consider how amazingly Moxie has run a tight ship, keeping strict control of the direction of the project, and fighting to maintain that. It's this strict process that has lead Signal to where it is today. We can't let the project grow beyond this control, this strict direction that is vital to the steady, consistent, continual growth and success of the project, it can't be diluted... and yet growth is the single most important thing we're currently fighting for. This team is insane. So I ask you, please don't get frustrated, I know it can be difficult, and it can feel like you're shouting into the void, but we still need you, the community still needs everyone who's currently involved to stay as involved as they can and support one another. The whispersystems team reads each and every one of the emails that come through this mailing list, as insane as that may sound given the rest of their work load... they just don't have time to respond to everything, and they leave it up to us to do much of that. We need to work together, as a community, to help the OWS team grow this project into something even more fantastic then it is currently, rather than just increasing their workload, and taking their focus away from important development work and decision making. We each need to take a step back, and make calculated contributions, and help to make their life easier any way we can. So where, as a community, can we go from here... Well, the single most effective thing you could do, if you really want to make a difference, and are able to work in San Francisco, consider applying to work full time at OWS [2]. They need designers and developers alike. If like me, you're not in San Francisco, or even the USA, then you can continue to contribute online. Keep the morale up and continue doing what you're doing. Direct newcomers in the right directions (mailing list, issues, support, docs, the unofficial server support google group, etc...), and spread the word and try and get as many people to adopt Signal as possible. As a community, we can probably do with some better coordination as to what each of us are doing, assigning ourselves development tasks, doing code review, handling responding to people, discussing design / feature requests, working out as a community which features / work we feel are most critical etc... Feature requests, however well intentioned, do fill up this mailing list quite a bit, but there doesn't really seem like there is a proper (public) home for them at the moment, issues should be focussed on bugs / minor feature requests only, and sending an email to this list sends it to almost 1000 people... not ideal. Perhaps there is the scope for some online space to handle / discuss feature requests / work in progress in an open manner? and perhaps allow the OWS team to be a little more transparent with the things they are currently working on etc... We could then also incorporate projects like the new windows phone initiative, and coordinate much more effectively? Anyway that's just food for thought, and probably best discussed another time. In the meantime, I'm probably going to write up some intro page for newcomers of the Signal community, to outline the landscape, and help direct their efforts. I'll post in here when that's done. Anyway, thanks for reading through this monster of an email! It was mostly a brain dump on my part. =) Oh! And make sure you watch the youtube video I linked below. Cheers, Sam --------- Links: [1]: https://youtu.be/c4EEa0HAqzQ?t=2m31s ^ watch this, really! [2]: https://whispersystems.org/workworkwork/

2 1

Fwd: [Cryptography] GCHQ's plan to backdoor encrypted phone calls
by Ben Mezger 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Cryptography] GCHQ's plan to backdoor encrypted phone calls Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:03:25 -0800 From: Henry Baker <hbaker1(a)pipeline.com> To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com FYI -- The whole article is too long to reproduce here; follow the link to read the whole article. https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2016/01/19/insecure-by-design-protocols-for-en… Insecure by design: protocols for encrypted phone calls The MIKEY-SAKKE protocol is being promoted by the UK government as a better way to secure phone calls. The reality is that MIKEY-SAKKE is designed to offer minimal security while allowing undetectable mass surveillance, through the introduction a backdoor based around mandatory key-escrow. This weakness has implications which go further than just the security of phone calls. The current state of security for phone calls leaves a lot to be desired. Land-line calls are almost entirely unencrypted, and cellphone calls are also unencrypted except for the radio link between the handset and the phone network. While the latest cryptography standards for cellphones (3G and 4G) are reasonably strong it is possible to force a phone to fall back to older standards with easy-to-break cryptography, if any. The vast majority of phones will not reveal to their user whether such an attack is under way. The only reason that eavesdropping on land-line calls is not commonplace is that getting access to the closed phone networks is not as easy compared to the more open Internet, and cellphone cryptography designers relied on the equipment necessary to intercept the radio link being only affordable by well-funded government intelligence agencies, and not by criminals or for corporate espionage. That might have been true in the past but it certainly no longer the case with the necessary equipment now available for $1,500. Governments, companies and individuals are increasingly looking for better security. A second driver for better phone call encryption is the convergence of Internet and phone networks. The LTE (Long-Term Evolution) 4G cellphone standard carries voice calls over IP packets, and desktop phones in companies are increasingly carrying voice over IP (VoIP) too. Because voice calls may travel over the Internet, whatever security was offered by the closed phone networks is gone and so other security mechanisms are needed. Like Internet data encryption, voice encryption can broadly be categorised as either link encryption, where each intermediary may encrypt data before passing it onto the next, or end-to-end encryption, where communications are encrypted such that only the legitimate end-points can have access to the unencrypted communication. End-to-end encryption is preferable for security because it avoids intermediaries being able to eavesdrop on communications and gives the end-points assurance that communications will indeed be encrypted all the way to their other communication partner. Current cellphone encryption standards are link encryption: the phone encrypts calls between it and the phone network using cryptographic keys stored on the Subscriber Identity Module (SIM). Within the phone network, encryption may also be present but the network provider still has access to unencrypted data, so even ignoring the vulnerability to fall-back attacks on the radio link, the network providers and their suppliers are weak points that are tempting for attackers to compromise. Recent examples of such attacks include the compromise of the phone networks of Vodafone in Greece (2004) and Belgacom in Belgium (2012), and the SIM card supplier Gemalto in France (2010). The identity of the Vodafone Greece hacker remains unknown (though the NSA is suspected) but the attacks against Belgacom and Gemalto were carried out by the UK signals intelligence agency -- GCHQ -- and only publicly revealed from the Snowden leaks, so it is quite possible there are others attacks which remain h idden. Email is typically only secured by link encryption, if at all, with HTTPS encrypting access to most webmail and Transport Layer Security (TLS) sometimes encrypting other communication protocols that carry email (SMTP, IMAP and POP). Again, the fact that intermediaries have access to plaintext creates a vulnerability, as demonstrated by the 2009 hack of Google's Gmail likely originating from China. End-to-end email encryption is possible using the OpenPGP or S/MIME protocols but their use is not common, primarily due to their poor usability, which in turn is at least partially a result of having to stay compatible with older insecure email standards. In contrast, instant messaging applications had more opportunity to start with a clean-slate and so this is where much innovation in terms of end-to-end security has taken place. Secure voice communication however has had less attention than instant messaging so in the remainder of the article we shall examine what should be expected of a secure voice communication system, and in particular see how one of the latest and up-coming protocols, MIKEY-SAKKE, which comes with UK government backing, meets these criteria. MIKEY-SAKKE and Secure Chorus MIKEY-SAKKE is the security protocol behind the Secure Chorus voice (and also video) encryption standard, commissioned and designed by GCHQ through their information security arm, CESG. GCHQ have announced that they will only certify voice encryption products through their Commercial Product Assurance (CPA) security evaluation scheme if the product implements MIKEY-SAKKE and Secure Chorus. As a result, MIKEY-SAKKE has a monopoly over the vast majority of classified UK government voice communication and so companies developing secure voice communication systems must implement it in order to gain access to this market. GCHQ can also set requirements of what products are used in the public sector and as well as for companies operating critical national infrastructure. ............. Conclusions and future work The design of MIKEY-SAKKE is motivated by the desire to allow undetectable and unauditable mass surveillance, which may be a requirement in exceptional scenarios such as within government departments processing classified information. However, in the vast majority of cases the properties that MIKEY-SAKKE offers are actively harmful for security. It creates a vulnerable single point of failure, which would require huge effort, skill and cost to secure -- requiring resource beyond the capability of most companies. Better options for voice encryption exist today, though they are not perfect either. In particular, more work is needed on providing scalable and usable protection against man-in-the-middle attacks, and protection of metadata for contact discovery and calls. More broadly, designers of protocols and systems need to appreciate the ethical consequences of their actions in terms of the political and power structures which naturally follow from their use. MIKEY-SAKKE is the lat est example to raise questions over the policy of many governments, including the UK, to put intelligence agencies in charge of protecting companies and individuals from spying, given the conflict of interest it creates. Update 2016-01-19: Fix broken links to GCHQ website, note that master key must be permanently available though not necessarily directly connected to the Internet, and mention suspicions that the NSA were involved in the Vodafone Greece compromise. The photograph above this article is of a AT&T TSD-3600E Telephone Security Device based around the Clipper key-escrow chip (© Matt Blaze). An edited version of this article will appear in the March 2016 special edition of IEEE Computer Magazine: Communications and Privacy under Surveillance. CC BY-ND 4.0 Insecure by design: protocols for encrypted phone calls by Steven J. Murdoch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Published by Steven J. Murdoch Dr Steven J. Murdoch is a Royal Society University Research Fellow in the Information Security Research Group of University College London, working on developing metrics for security and privacy. His research interests include authentication/passwords, banking security, anonymous communications, censorship resistance and covert channels. He has worked with the OpenNet Initiative, investigating Internet censorship, and for the Tor Project, on improving the security and usability of the Tor anonymity system. His current research on developing methods to understand complex system security is supported by the Royal Society. He is also working on analysing the security of banking systems, especially Chip & PIN/EMV, and is Innovation Security Architect of Cronto, an online authentication technology provider and part of the VASCO group. _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

1 0