Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Stack)   No evidence that encryption was a factor in Paris attacks, but please give up your encryption keys anyway   (thestack.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Cyrus Vance, Vance Jr., manhattan da, zero-knowledge encryption, Manhattan, mobile operating systems, Government, Smartphone  
•       •       •

1361 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 19 Nov 2015 at 12:24 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



105 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2015-11-19 9:51:39 AM  
This will work because no one in history has ever used one-time pads or innocent sounding code phrases to communicate surreptitiously.

/John has a large foot
//The lamp is on the table
///The Boobies are no longer on the Fark
 
2015-11-19 9:54:37 AM  
Know any good white basketball players?
 
2015-11-19 10:26:41 AM  

TommyDeuce: This will work because no one in history has ever used one-time pads or innocent sounding code phrases to communicate surreptitiously.


Indeed. My hovercraft is full of eels.
 
2015-11-19 10:28:58 AM  
But we didn't know! That can't possibly be because wer'e not smart and talented. They must have cheated.
 
2015-11-19 10:43:17 AM  
Can you tell the difference between a terrorist plot and a Meetup group?
 
2015-11-19 10:51:53 AM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size



In my more optimistic moments, I wonder what would happen if went with the idea of crypto as a munition and spun infosec as a Second Amendment issue. "From my cold storage filesystem," and all that. And in my more realistic moments, I realize it would just give the other party an excuse to double down on its derp. BSABSEBG13.

On the other hand, the War on Poverty resulted in the ghettoes and the projects. The War on Drugs failed to limit the availability of drugs. The War on Terror has resulted in blowback around the world. We should expect no less of a failure in the coming War on Mathematics.

And on the gripping hand, the electorate and those whom it elects seem to be so poor at risk assessment that perhaps the War on Mathematics has already been fought, and that the forces of innumeracy have won.
 
2015-11-19 11:00:07 AM  

Twilight Farkle: We should expect no less of a failure in the coming War on Mathematics.


Henceforth, Pi shall shall have a value of 3.

/So say we all.
//Well, Indiana... once upon a dumb time.
//Mmm... pi...
 
2015-11-19 11:24:53 AM  
You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.
 
2015-11-19 12:03:08 PM  

Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.


Actually, I can, in a single picture:

img.fark.netView Full Size


What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.
 
2015-11-19 12:27:58 PM  
athropolis.comView Full Size
 
2015-11-19 12:32:53 PM  
Our solution requires no new technology or costly adjustments.

Ah yes, unicorn science.  I'm guessing it also requires "just the tip" of the horn, too.
 
2015-11-19 12:34:50 PM  
bend over and spell run...
 
2015-11-19 12:42:08 PM  
matoumatheux.ac-rennes.frView Full Size
 
2015-11-19 12:42:28 PM  

wildcardjack: Can you tell the difference between a terrorist plot and a Meetup group?


People actually turn up for a terrorist plot?
 
2015-11-19 12:44:24 PM  

likefunbutnot: wildcardjack: Can you tell the difference between a terrorist plot and a Meetup group?

People actually turn up for a terrorist plot?


Just like a meetup group, I could see myself dying with them. But spending time with them? No.
 
2015-11-19 12:48:03 PM  
iarbuzz.comView Full Size
 
2015-11-19 12:48:14 PM  
Apparently ISIS really wants its members to drink their Ovaltine.
 
2015-11-19 12:58:15 PM  

Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.


1. Nothing sounds rational to law makers, or apparently you for that matter.  Facts certainly don't and expert opinions don't, either.

2. There is no security argument.  Not one.  In fact, all this would do is remove native support of secure encryption and/or encourage adding of backdoors in the operating system.  Any decent drug dealer terrorist will flash an open-source operating system and install apps that provide the missing secure-crypto functionality in the open-source form the algorithms are already in--unless of course, you want to burn books on crytography in your fascist persuits, too.  So, at best, it's a "trivial annoyance" argument.
 
2015-11-19 1:05:05 PM  
First they seized people's cash through civil forfeiture, but I didn't care because I had no cash.
Then they seized people's property through eminent domain, but I didn't care because I had no property.
Then they came for people's guns, but I didn't care because I had no guns.
Then they came for my encryption...
 
2015-11-19 1:06:45 PM  

Twilight Farkle: [i.imgur.com image 600x400]

In my more optimistic moments, I wonder what would happen if went with the idea of crypto as a munition and spun infosec as a Second Amendment issue. "From my cold storage filesystem," and all that. And in my more realistic moments, I realize it would just give the other party an excuse to double down on its derp. BSABSEBG13.

On the other hand, the War on Poverty resulted in the ghettoes and the projects. The War on Drugs failed to limit the availability of drugs. The War on Terror has resulted in blowback around the world. We should expect no less of a failure in the coming War on Mathematics.

And on the gripping hand, the electorate and those whom it elects seem to be so poor at risk assessment that perhaps the War on Mathematics has already been fought, and that the forces of innumeracy have won.


How about the 3rd/quartering of soldiers? If our electronics are assets are they less than drones? Apparently we can't have the 4th or due process from the 5th and 14th though information holds value and should be considered property.
 
2015-11-19 1:07:05 PM  

dittybopper: Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.

Actually, I can, in a single picture:

[img.fark.net image 850x1133]

What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.


Why does the 'U' show 5/2 result in 8?
 
2015-11-19 1:10:35 PM  
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
fufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufufu​fu
-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----

//what the hell? that does not seem random at all
 
2015-11-19 1:12:03 PM  

likefunbutnot: wildcardjack: Can you tell the difference between a terrorist plot and a Meetup group?

People actually turn up for a terrorist plot?


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2015-11-19 1:25:44 PM  
"But ultimately, the line between an individual's right to privacy and the legitimate needs of law enforcement should not be decided by the marketing departments of smartphone companies. That line should be defined by legislatures and the courts."


NO,  this line should be defined by the farking Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment.
 
2015-11-19 1:28:38 PM  

swaxhog: dittybopper: Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.

Actually, I can, in a single picture:

[img.fark.net image 850x1133]

What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.

Why does the 'U' show 5/2 result in 8?


Because I farked up the math :-).   I was in a rush.

But it still would have been obvious what the message was:

67789 79245 68925
11027 25593 50804
----- ----- -----
56762 54752 18121
Y OTS W OU  L D


The person deciphering would see that and say "Hey, Mohammed made an arithmetic mistake, it should read 'You would', not 'Yots would'."

That's the nice thing about non-carrying, non-borrowing arithmetic for this kind of thing:  mistakes don't propagate through the whole message.
 
2015-11-19 1:28:39 PM  

dittybopper: Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.

Actually, I can, in a single picture:

[img.fark.net image 850x1133]

What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.


It's almost like there are free, easy ways to do this, and then information on how to do it effectively on the Internet.

BUT REMOVE ENCRYPTION ANYWAY BECAUSE REASONS
 
2015-11-19 1:29:13 PM  
I will share my keys and encryption schemes with the U.S. government, just as soon as they share theirs with me.

I trust them just as far as they trust me, which is to say, not at all.
 
2015-11-19 1:39:35 PM  
I'm just gonna leave this right here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=problem+reaction+solution
 
2015-11-19 1:41:36 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I will share my keys and encryption schemes with the U.S. government, just as soon as they share theirs with me.

I trust them just as far as they trust me, which is to say, not at all.


Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.
 
2015-11-19 1:44:20 PM  
Remember - there is no tragedy so horrific that a fascist won't exploit it.
 
2015-11-19 1:45:34 PM  

Lucky LaRue: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I will share my keys and encryption schemes with the U.S. government, just as soon as they share theirs with me.

I trust them just as far as they trust me, which is to say, not at all.

Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.


I'll just build me some one-time pads. I got nothing but time.
 
2015-11-19 1:49:17 PM  

TommyDeuce: This will work because no one in history has ever used one-time pads or innocent sounding code phrases to communicate surreptitiously.

/John has a large foot
//The lamp is on the table
///The Boobies are no longer on the Fark


Oy! Not a dicky bird about that!
 
2015-11-19 1:51:08 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Lucky LaRue: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I will share my keys and encryption schemes with the U.S. government, just as soon as they share theirs with me.

I trust them just as far as they trust me, which is to say, not at all.

Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.

I'll just build me some one-time pads. I got nothing but time.


I wouldn't be surprised if the government has set up shell companies with the best NSA people producing "Worlds Strongest Encrypted Communicator App", a ga-gillion dollars for marketing, shill hiring, etc., with an attempt to make it become ubiquitous.  They'll probably even set up a dark-web site or two to "leak" it.
 
2015-11-19 1:52:34 PM  

Lucky LaRue: Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.


How? farking unicorns?  Is it possible to get this through your head? People give encryption tools away free, and open source.  Until you can understand what the implications are for that--or learn vocabulary--you're not adult enough to have this conversation.
 
2015-11-19 1:57:13 PM  

koder: Lucky LaRue: Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.

How? farking unicorns?  Is it possible to get this through your head? People give encryption tools away free, and open source.  Until you can understand what the implications are for that--or learn vocabulary--you're not adult enough to have this conversation.


They could require you to provide them with the keys to decrypt it, upon pain of prosecution, with the "promise" that they will be held in 'escrow' and not revealed without warrant.
 
2015-11-19 1:58:28 PM  

dittybopper: The person deciphering would see that and say "Hey, Mohammed made an arithmetic mistake, it should read 'You would', not 'Yots would'."


api.ning.comView Full Size
 
2015-11-19 2:03:05 PM  

dittybopper: What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.


The counter-argument here is ubiquity. If encryption is hard to accomplish, like using a manually generated one-time-pad, then you're only going to use it when it's really important. If encryption is easy, then everyone uses it for everything.

When everyone uses encryption, it's impossible to know what's important and what isn't.

If encryption was rare, then the presence of encrypted communications themselves gives you some information as to what is going on. If you had further data, such as an origin/destination IP address, the presence of encrypted data alongside metadata is very telling indeed. For example, an encrypted communication from the Coca Cola HQ to a Coca Cola branch office is not likely to be a threat to security. However, an encrypted communication from Yemen to the mainland US is much more notable.

Even if the encryption is perfect, a spike in communications volume and frequency gives you information about what is going on.

Personally, I believe that strong encryption benefits everyone, but perfect encryption doesn't make you perfectly safe. Even as early as WWII the codebreakers were doing meta-analysis and traffic pattern analysis to give valuable clues to enemy behavior without actually breaking codes.
 
2015-11-19 2:19:44 PM  
Twilight Farkle:  And on the gripping hand


And you're favorited.
 
2015-11-19 2:19:55 PM  

koder: Lucky LaRue: Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.

How? farking unicorns?  Is it possible to get this through your head? People give encryption tools away free, and open source.  Until you can understand what the implications are for that--or learn vocabulary--you're not adult enough to have this conversation.


well you have to assume:
1. you're capable of auditing the source code for back doors and didn't miss anything
2. none of the static or dynamic libraries the source depends on have been compromised
3. none of your build tools have been compromised
4. the compiler has not been compromised nor the compiler compiler
5. the operating system has not been compromised
6. the CPU or other chips have not been compromised
 
2015-11-19 2:35:07 PM  

Fubini: Even as early as WWII the codebreakers were doing meta-analysis and traffic pattern analysis to give valuable clues to enemy behavior without actually breaking codes.


Try WWI.

Oh, and I actually have vaguely worded medal from the US Army for performing a bit of traffic analysis that was considered above my pay grade, so the idea isn't really new to me.

/No, I can't tell you.
 
2015-11-19 2:36:34 PM  

dittybopper: Because I farked up the math :-).   I was in a rush.


If it was for reals, I would have almost certainly double-checked it.  But I was trying to get it done during lunch.
 
2015-11-19 2:37:22 PM  
No evidence that encryption was a factor in Paris attacks....

maybe all of the evidence is encrypted?
 
2015-11-19 2:43:26 PM  
Fear not, citizens!  These shady government officials benevolent protectors are just ensuring that you do not have independent thoughts that run counter to their agenda are safe from today's fear-mongering target terrorists!  They and those who bought their offices for them want nothing but to ensure that you remain complacent safe and they remain in power vigilant for threats to their power your safety!  So go about your day and remember to think happy thoughts or you will be flagged for further investigation!
 
2015-11-19 3:00:16 PM  

FormlessOne: Remember - there is no tragedy so horrific that a fascist won't exploit it.


I hate Illinois Nazis that are mayors of Chicago.
 
2015-11-19 3:11:46 PM  

dittybopper: Fubini: Even as early as WWII the codebreakers were doing meta-analysis and traffic pattern analysis to give valuable clues to enemy behavior without actually breaking codes.

Try WWI.

Oh, and I actually have vaguely worded medal from the US Army for performing a bit of traffic analysis that was considered above my pay grade, so the idea isn't really new to me.

/No, I can't tell you.


Putin has constant constipation, you could tell from his candy crush usage?
 
2015-11-19 3:14:07 PM  
if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

guess they figured out that expression was too dumb for comment any more...
 
2015-11-19 3:28:54 PM  

dittybopper: swaxhog: dittybopper: Lucky LaRue: You are fighting a lost cause, subby, because your side can't marshall a single argument that sounds rational to law makers or trumps the security argument.

Actually, I can, in a single picture:

[img.fark.net image 850x1133]

What that means, for the uninformed, that it doesn't matter what kind of back doors or shortcuts you require to be inserted in encryption software, people can encrypt offline using a method that is unbreakable, and then simply transmit the encrypted message.  No amount of back doors, key escrow, or weakening of computerized encryption algorithms is going to protect you from that.

Why does the 'U' show 5/2 result in 8?

Because I farked up the math :-).   I was in a rush.

But it still would have been obvious what the message was:

67789 79245 68925
11027 25593 50804
----- ----- -----
56762 54752 18121
Y OTS W OU  L D

The person deciphering would see that and say "Hey, Mohammed made an arithmetic mistake, it should read 'You would', not 'Yots would'."

That's the nice thing about non-carrying, non-borrowing arithmetic for this kind of thing:  mistakes don't propagate through the whole message.


You got a website that details how to do this sorcery?

I mean I know what one time pads are, I've just never actually made one.
 
2015-11-19 3:35:25 PM  

dittybopper: vaguely worded medal from the US Army for performing a bit of traffic analysis


Ah, that must be the Something Something Citation for Something. :-)

/I assume you could tell us.
//But then you'd have to kill us.
///(I have no doubt you have that award. I just liked the "vaguely worded" description.) :-)
 
2015-11-19 3:41:37 PM  

chasd00: koder: Lucky LaRue: Doesn't matter if you trust them or not.  They are going to get a back-door from the people selling you the encryption tools.

How? farking unicorns?  Is it possible to get this through your head? People give encryption tools away free, and open source.  Until you can understand what the implications are for that--or learn vocabulary--you're not adult enough to have this conversation.

well you have to assume:
1. you're capable of auditing the source code for back doors and didn't miss anything
2. none of the static or dynamic libraries the source depends on have been compromised
3. none of your build tools have been compromised
4. the compiler has not been compromised nor the compiler compiler
5. the operating system has not been compromised
6. the CPU or other chips have not been compromised


Now these are getting toward reasonable arguments (well, some of them), but they are completely irrelevant to the situation at hand:  these guys realistically want backdoors that are simple:  they want a key hard-coded into the OSes that they can use to decrypt on-demand.  It's the same thing the FBI has been begging congress for legislation on.  They don't know how to ask for anything else, because if they knew how stupid and short-sighted asking for a backdoor key was, they'd know not to ask for it in the first place.

They don't want it for terrorists; they want it to spy on white-collar crime, drug dealers, prostitutes, social movements, kiddie porners, and whatever "undesirables" they deem popularly worthy of authoritarian wrath.  I'm fairly certain that the NSA and the Army are more than capable of dealing with most encryption in short order when the need arises--without back doors--for when it's truly an issue of national security (i.e., actual terrorism).  And, they do not share that technology--they are explicitly forbidden from sharing that technology--with the FBI for very, very good reasons.  Nobody, including even corrupt politicians, wants a police state.
 
2015-11-19 3:45:24 PM  

Metastatic Capricorn: TommyDeuce: This will work because no one in history has ever used one-time pads or innocent sounding code phrases to communicate surreptitiously.

/John has a large foot
//The lamp is on the table
///The Boobies are no longer on the Fark

Oy! Not a dicky bird about that!


Might have to introduce him to the apples if he keeps it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.