By Joseph Menn
SAN FRANCISCO
(Reuters) - As a key part of a campaign to embed encryption software
that it could crack into widely used computer products, the U.S.
National Security Agency arranged a secret $10 million contract with
RSA, one of the most influential firms in the computer security
industry, Reuters has learned.
Documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show that the
NSA created and promulgated a flawed formula for generating random
numbers to create a "back door" in encryption products, the New York
Times reported in September. Reuters later reported that RSA became the
most important distributor of that formula by rolling it into a software
tool called Bsafe that is used to enhance security in personal
computers and many other products.
Undisclosed until now was that RSA received $10 million in a deal that
set the NSA formula as the preferred, or default, method for number
generation in the BSafe software, according to two sources familiar with
the contract. Although that sum might seem paltry, it represented more
than a third of the revenue that the relevant division at RSA had taken
in during the entire previous year, securities filings show.
The earlier disclosures of RSA's entanglement with the NSA already had
shocked some in the close-knit world of computer security experts. The
company had a long history of championing privacy and security, and it
played a leading role in blocking a 1990s effort by the NSA to require a
special chip to enable spying on a wide range of computer and
communications products.
RSA, now a subsidiary of computer storage giant EMC Corp, urged
customers to stop using the NSA formula after the Snowden disclosures
revealed its weakness.
RSA
and EMC declined to answer questions for this story, but RSA said in a
statement: "RSA always acts in the best interest of its customers and
under no circumstances does RSA design or enable any back doors in our
products. Decisions about the features and functionality of RSA products
are our own."
The NSA declined to comment.
The RSA deal shows one way the NSA carried out what Snowden's documents
describe as a key strategy for enhancing surveillance: the systematic
erosion of security tools. NSA documents released in recent months
called for using "commercial relationships" to advance that goal, but
did not name any security companies as collaborators.
The NSA came under attack this week in a landmark report from a White
House panel appointed to review U.S. surveillance policy. The panel
noted that "encryption is an essential basis for trust on the Internet,"
and called for a halt to any NSA efforts to undermine it.
Most of the dozen current and former RSA employees interviewed said
that the company erred in agreeing to such a contract, and many cited
RSA's corporate evolution away from pure cryptography products as one of
the reasons it occurred.
But several said that RSA also was misled by government officials, who portrayed the formula as a secure technological advance.
"They did not show their true hand," one person briefed on the deal
said of the NSA, asserting that government officials did not let on that
they knew how to break the encryption.
STORIED HISTORY
View gallery
A National Security Agency (NSA) data gathering facility is seen in Bluffdale, about 25 miles (40 km …
Started by MIT professors
in the 1970s and led for years by ex-Marine Jim Bidzos, RSA and its
core algorithm were both named for the last initials of the three
founders, who revolutionized cryptography. Little known to the public,
RSA's encryption tools have been licensed by most large technology
companies, which in turn use them to protect computers used by hundreds
of millions of people.
At
the core of RSA's products was a technology known as public key
cryptography. Instead of using the same key for encoding and then
decoding a message, there are two keys related to each other
mathematically. The first, publicly available key is used to encode a
message for someone, who then uses a second, private key to reveal it.
From RSA's earliest days, the U.S. intelligence establishment worried
it would not be able to crack well-engineered public key cryptography.
Martin Hellman, a former Stanford researcher who led the team that first
invented the technique, said NSA experts tried to talk him and others
into believing that the keys did not have to be as large as they
planned.
The stakes rose
when more technology companies adopted RSA's methods and Internet use
began to soar. The Clinton administration embraced the Clipper Chip,
envisioned as a mandatory component in phones and computers to enable
officials to overcome encryption with a warrant.
RSA led a fierce public campaign against the effort, distributing
posters with a foundering sailing ship and the words "Sink Clipper!"
A key argument against the chip was that overseas buyers would shun
U.S. technology products if they were ready-made for spying. Some
companies say that is just what has happened in the wake of the Snowden
disclosures.
The White House
abandoned the Clipper Chip and instead relied on export controls to
prevent the best cryptography from crossing U.S. borders. RSA once again
rallied the industry, and it set up an Australian division that could
ship what it wanted.
"We became the tip of the spear, so to speak, in this fight against government efforts," Bidzos recalled in an oral history.
RSA EVOLVES
RSA and others claimed victory when export restrictions relaxed.
But the NSA was determined to read what it wanted, and the quest gained urgency after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
RSA, meanwhile, was changing. Bidzos stepped down as CEO in 1999 to
concentrate on VeriSign, a security certificate company that had been
spun out of RSA. The elite lab Bidzos had founded in Silicon Valley
moved east to Massachusetts, and many top engineers left the company,
several former employees said.
And the BSafe toolkit was becoming
a much smaller part of the company. By 2005, BSafe and other tools for
developers brought in just $27.5 million of RSA's revenue, less than 9%
of the $310 million total.
"When I joined there were 10 people in
the labs, and we were fighting the NSA," said Victor Chan, who rose to
lead engineering and the Australian operation before he left in 2005.
"It became a very different company later on."
By the first half
of 2006, RSA was among the many technology companies seeing the U.S.
government as a partner against overseas hackers.
New RSA Chief Executive Art Coviello and his team still wanted to be
seen as part of the technological vanguard, former employees say, and
the NSA had just the right pitch. Coviello declined an interview
request.
An algorithm called
Dual Elliptic Curve, developed inside the agency, was on the road to
approval by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology as one
of four acceptable methods for generating random numbers. NIST's
blessing is required for many products sold to the government and often
sets a broader de facto standard.
RSA adopted the algorithm even before NIST approved it. The NSA then
cited the early use of Dual Elliptic Curve inside the government to
argue successfully for NIST approval, according to an official familiar
with the proceedings.
RSA's
contract made Dual Elliptic Curve the default option for producing
random numbers in the RSA toolkit. No alarms were raised, former
employees said, because the deal was handled by business leaders rather
than pure technologists.
"The labs group had played a very intricate role at BSafe, and they were
basically gone," said labs veteran Michael Wenocur, who left in 1999.
Within a year, major questions were raised about Dual Elliptic Curve.
Cryptography authority Bruce Schneier wrote that the weaknesses in the
formula "can only be described as a back door."
After reports of the back door in September, RSA urged its customers to stop using the Dual Elliptic Curve number generator.
But unlike the Clipper Chip fight two decades ago, the company is
saying little in public, and it declined to discuss how the NSA
entanglements have affected its relationships with customers.
The White House, meanwhile, says it will consider this week's panel
recommendation that any efforts to subvert cryptography be abandoned.
(Reporting by Joseph Menn; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Grant McCool)