Bitcoin Forum
April 30, 2024, 03:48:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Has the NSA already broken bitcoin?  (Read 50420 times)
twobitlolz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 61
Merit: 10


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 07:45:52 AM
Last edit: September 06, 2013, 08:06:29 AM by twobitlolz
 #41

even if the notion that the NSA can currently break SHA256; Bitcoin; or the entire Internet at will is still far-fetched for the time being, there's no denying how disturbing the reality of the situation is. when i see articles like these, i can't help but picture a Mirror's Edge-style future -- people bounding across rooftops with paper Bitcoin wallets stuffed in their rectums.

Correct me if I'm wrong and misread sometime off one of news sites, but I understood that the NSA was able to intercept, then index all transmissions prior to the encryption process. To me, this made perfect sense when I read it, for then it wouldn't matter what SHA(?) is used, the information would already be mirrored and stored, somehow allowing the NSA to act as the man-in-the-middle.
as long as information is being encrypted and decrypted on trusted hardware, (even if that hardware is pen and paper,) the NSA can do little to eavesdrop on your plaintext. even if the NSA compromises every computer endpoint involved in the transmission of encrypted communications, they would need to look right over your shoulder to intercept something you 'crypted by hand. that said, a Netgear router and Windows Firewall wouldn't keep the world's top cyber-intelligence agents away from your hard drive, your RAM, and everything you type.
1714492117
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714492117

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714492117
Reply with quote  #2

1714492117
Report to moderator
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
wopwop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 06, 2013, 08:06:32 AM
Last edit: September 08, 2013, 03:41:29 AM by theymos
 #42

I work for the NNSA and all I can tell is we will look for you, we will find you and we will prosecute you under the name of justice









Disclaimer: NNSA is Not related to NSA
mirthworm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12
Merit: 0


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 09:57:30 AM
 #43

If someone (NSA, or anyone else) did break the encryption used by Bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies, that would be all the more reason to switch to Primecoin!

Bitcoin doesn't use encryption. Primecoin (and every altcoin clone) generates addresses using the exact same cryptographic primitives (ECDSA, SHA-256, RIPEMD-160)


Good point. I was not thinking of addresses. But of the coins themselves. Primecoin would clearly need a way to be able to generate an arbitrarily large number of coins (based on Cunningham Chains), as it has no inherent upper bound to the number of possible coins. That wouldn't matter though, if every address was accessed, like you suggested. Still, if anything will spur developments in cryptography, bitcoin will have some hand in it. At least until the NSA takes over the network and shuts it down to create another great depression.  Wink
Nigeria Prince
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0



View Profile
September 06, 2013, 09:59:35 AM
 #44

NSA even invented Bitcoin.

Nakamoto SAtoshi = NSA
marcovaldo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250



View Profile
September 06, 2013, 10:00:51 AM
 #45

NSA even invented Bitcoin.

Nakamoto SAtoshi = NSA

Yep Tongue
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=235342.0

BITEX
            ███     ███     ███
              ███     ███     ███
                ███     ███     ███
                  ███     ███     ███
                    ███     ███     ███
                      ███     ███     ███
                        ███     ███     ███
                          ███     ███     ███
                            ███     ███     ███
                              ███     ███     ███
                            ███     ███     ███
                          ███     ███     ███
                        ███     ███     ███
                      ███     ███     ███
                    ███     ███     ███
                  ███     ███     ███
                ███     ███     ███
              ███     ███     ███
            ███     ███     ███

The First Locally-Embedded, Yet Global, Crypto-Bank
TELEGRAM    FACEBOOK   TWITTER    YOUTUBE    LINE

                  ███     ███     ███
                ███     ███     ███
              ███     ███     ███
            ███     ███     ███
          ███     ███     ███
        ███     ███     ███
      ███     ███     ███
    ███     ███     ███
  ███     ███     ███
███     ███     ███
  ███     ███     ███
    ███     ███     ███
      ███     ███     ███
        ███     ███     ███
          ███     ███     ███
            ███     ███     ███
              ███     ███     ███
               ███     ███     ███
                 ███     ███     ███

WHITEPAPER | ANN
JOIN WHITELIST NOW!
xxjs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 10:11:39 AM
 #46

To believe the the NSA has broken SHA-2 would be to believe that the NSA found something the entire rest of the world combined hasn't found for twenty years.

Why would the NSA or any other intelligence agency reveal that it had cracked/compromised an encryption technology? Wouldn't they keep it a secret as long as possible, to collect as much damaging information as possible, just as the allies did in WWII?

This may be a new strategy AS (After Snowden). If the subjects all believe that everything is known and it is futile to try to communicate, or even to think, the cost of staying in power becomes far less. This is covered in 1984 by Orwell.

It is better to asess their real capacity, and act according to that.
faiza1990
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


★☆★777Coin★☆★


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 10:14:47 AM
 #47

This would be pretty easy to test. Just get a bunch of friends to start exchanging encrypted messages about bombing an embassy or govt office. If these douche-bags can break it, they'd be on you like white on rice.

can anyone think of a lower risk way to test...?

no body going to take this risk even its end of a life

b!z
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1010



View Profile
September 06, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
 #48

This would be pretty easy to test. Just get a bunch of friends to start exchanging encrypted messages about bombing an embassy or govt office. If these douche-bags can break it, they'd be on you like white on rice.

can anyone think of a lower risk way to test...?

no body going to take this risk even its end of a life

send the NSA a  letter and see if they answer your question Roll Eyes
cr1776
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 11:13:57 AM
 #49

Very true. I am less worried about encryption etc being cracked than weakened. Eg back doors, compromised certificate authorities, large numbers of compromised Tor nodes, and importantly purposefully weakened PRNGs.  

The math is the safest part, the implementation of the tools (OSs, compilers programs) are where exploit opportunities are located.

Remember. This website is not safe.

Bitcoin probably is.


Just check the certificate in address bar:
The issuer:
CN = GeoTrust Global CA
O = GeoTrust Inc.
C = US


Oh US... I wonder if NSA has the keys...

The web security isn't really a hard thing to crack. You have handful of authorities and if you get to them whole chain unravels... There is points of weakness and USA government has access to those...
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 12:07:55 PM
 #50

An USA certificate? Why isn't the admin getting a not-USA as fast as possible?

cr1776
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
 #51

It happens all over, eg http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/turkish-government-agency-spoofed-google-certificate-accidentally/

A distributed peer to peer CA would be useful if widely used. Eg tied in with name coin or something else

An USA certificate? Why isn't the admin getting a not-USA as fast as possible?
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382



View Profile WWW
September 06, 2013, 12:34:21 PM
 #52

The certificate authority has no access to the website's keys.

The evil thing CA's can do is that they can sign fake certs… but the CA a particular site uses is irrelevant to this, as any CA can sign for any domain.
luv2drnkbr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 793
Merit: 1016



View Profile
September 06, 2013, 02:31:23 PM
 #53

I still think because of Bruce Schneier's recent blog that we should hard fork over to using 512 bit ECC...

Quote from: Bruce Schneier
Breakthroughs in factoring have occurred regularly over the past several decades, allowing us to break ever-larger public keys. Much of the public-key cryptography we use today involves elliptic curves, something that is even more ripe for mathematical breakthroughs. It is not unreasonable to assume that the NSA has some techniques in this area that we in the academic world do not. Certainly the fact that the NSA is pushing elliptic-curve cryptography is some indication that it can break them more easily.

If we think that's the case, the fix is easy: increase the key lengths.

Assuming the hypothetical NSA breakthroughs don't totally break public-cryptography -- and that's a very reasonable assumption -- it's pretty easy to stay a few steps ahead of the NSA by using ever-longer keys. We're already trying to phase out 1024-bit RSA keys in favor of 2048-bit keys. Perhaps we need to jump even further ahead and consider 3072-bit keys. And maybe we should be even more paranoid about elliptic curves and use key lengths above 500 bits.

yvv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000

.


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2013, 02:39:07 PM
 #54

This would be pretty easy to test. Just get a bunch of friends to start exchanging encrypted messages about bombing an embassy or govt office. If these douche-bags can break it, they'd be on you like white on rice.

Yeahh! You can also test sharpness of knife by sticking it into your throat. Always works.

.
Pangia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 02:42:21 PM
 #55

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp&pagewanted=all


N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web
By NICOLE PERLROTH, JEFF LARSON and SCOTT SHANE



The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents.
Enlarge This Image
 
Associated Press
This undated photo released by the United States government shows the National Security Agency campus in Fort Meade, Md.
This article has been reported in partnership among The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica based on documents obtained by The Guardian. For The Guardian: James Ball, Julian Borger, Glenn Greenwald. For The New York Times: Nicole Perlroth, Scott Shane. For ProPublica: Jeff Larson.
Multimedia
 
Document
Secret Documents Reveal N.S.A. Campaign Against Encryption
 
Graphic
Unlocking Private Communications
National Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image
 
Susan Walsh/Associated Press
CITING EFFORTS TO EXPLOIT WEB James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (943) »
The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show.

Many users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.

Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own “back door” in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth.

The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated.

The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. In some cases, companies say they were coerced by the government into handing over their master encryption keys or building in a back door. And the agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world.

“For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,” said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. “Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.”

When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, “those not already briefed were gobsmacked!”

An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. “We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic,” the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.

In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.’s reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects.

The agency’s success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans’ e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features.

The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say.

Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by leaders of Al Qaeda about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials’ messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work.

But some experts say the N.S.A.’s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications.

Some of the agency’s most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL; virtual private networks, or VPNs; and the protection used on fourth-generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company’s computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network.

For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft’s Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed “new access opportunities” into Google’s systems, according to the document. (Google denied giving any government access and said it had no evidence its systems had been breached).

“The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you’re not the only one to exploit it,” said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too.”

Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip.

“And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone,” Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency’s mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information.

“The intelligence community has worried about ‘going dark’ forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort,” he said. “This is the golden age of spying.”

A Vital Capability

The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus on GCHQ but include thousands from or about the N.S.A.

Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful privacy tools.

The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s Web site in June.

“Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,” he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.

The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers.

“In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,” a 2007 document said. “It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.”

The full extent of the N.S.A.’s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas — both names of an American Civil War battle. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century.

Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict “need to know” basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, “there will be NO ‘need to know.’ ”

Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program’s capabilities, methods and sources.

Ties to Internet Companies

When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to a Web address.

Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency’s success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware.

According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which “actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs” to make them “exploitable.” Sigint is the acronym for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping.

By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments.

In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times.

The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights “partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses” — that is, to allow more eavesdropping.

At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft’s most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company’s cloud storage service.

Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with “lawful demands” of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Some companies have been asked to hand the government the encryption keys to all customer communications, according to people familiar with the government’s requests.

N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it.

How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies’ computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. “Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies,” a GCHQ document says, “will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys.”

Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency’s 2013 budget request was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method.

Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members.

Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.”

“Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says.

Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.’s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency’s hacking division uses that same program to develop and “leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners” to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products.

By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key.

That proposal met a backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America’s global technology edge.

By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream.

Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled “This can’t be good.”

But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government’s nuclear department and another’s Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them.

By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300.

But the agencies’ goal was to move away from decrypting targets’ tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world’s fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence.

A 2010 document calls for “a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted.” By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed “groundbreaking capabilities” against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum.

But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere “fact of” decryption became widely known. “These capabilities are among the Sigint community’s most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple ‘fact of’ could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,” a GCHQ document warned.

Since Mr. Snowden’s disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government’s requests for cooperation. One e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, closed rather than comply with the agency’s demands for customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face such demands.

In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered.

Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. “Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent,” he wrote, “I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”


John Markoff contributed reporting.


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
Walsoraj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Ultranode


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 02:45:19 PM
 #56

One of these recent articles mentions a breakthrough in cryptanalysis in 2010. This was same year that NSA to stopped relying on Sha-1. Coincidence? I think not. Just a matter of time before SHA-2 is vulnerable.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382



View Profile WWW
September 06, 2013, 02:46:24 PM
 #57

I still think because of Bruce Schneier's recent blog that we should hard fork over to using 512 bit ECC...
There is no need to hared fork to upgrade asymmetric schemes in Bitcoin.  Though if our current scheme was insecure it would be due to a mathematical breakthrough that might also render 512 bit insecure. (e.g. if index calculus worked on Elliptic curves ECC security would scale like RSA security and 512 bits would likely be insecure too).  I expect that when we add another asymmetric scheme it will be lamport with a choice of SHA256 SHA512/256 and SHA3 as the hash function (I have a BIP started up on this, but I've been waiting for SHA3 to be finalized)
hashman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 03:47:07 PM
 #58

I'm reading this book right now. Pretty on topic. In this novel the NSA can decrypt any algorithm except one...



I'm sorry for your loss.  That book is total junk.  At least with the other formulaic dan brown novels, they touch on something he knows about (religious history).  This one does not. 
xxjs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
 #59

I'm reading this book right now. Pretty on topic. In this novel the NSA can decrypt any algorithm except one...



I'm sorry for your loss.  That book is total junk.  At least with the other formulaic dan brown novels, they touch on something he knows about (religious history).  This one does not. 

What you can learn from this book is that if you design a set of rules and a hierarchy of procedures, then go on breaking each one of them, you are not secure. Maybe there was some sex in there also, I don't remember.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
September 06, 2013, 04:02:31 PM
 #60

I understand that NSA is doing their best to attack everything and i probably won't trust SHA-3 for some years, but to say that NSA is better than the rest of the world at breaking encryption algorithms is too much. Russia, China, India, Europe and whatelse so far didn't break them and NSA can break everything?

Probably they are trying to get laws to request keys, infiltrate everywhere and modify the implementations of the algorithms

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!