Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#101

Post by gojomo »

eru wrote: post #99
gojomo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if there are quantitatively and qualitatively more full-time, well-funded cryptographers inside the NSA (and its collaborating sibling organizations in its close allies) than outside? They may have an internal system, with geographically-distributed schools of thought, specialties, and long-running debates, as rich and open as the outside world - just completely segregated. At least, that's how I'd do it, if…

How do you keep all that so secret for so long?

If you keep it secret, you're well-paid for cutting-edge work that's impossible to do anywhere else. And the general mission – keeping your home country's defense and political institutions the best-informed in the world – can be quite appealing. Inside, I'm sure you hear plenty about feel-good successes: lives saved and national interests protected.

On the other hand, if you reveal the programs, you lose your job, get cut off from your professional colleagues, and likely go to jail.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#102

Post by nly »

moxie wrote: post #40

The documents says they are "... investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit internet traffic." Not that they have achieved groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities. It's common for people to suggest that the NSA is 20 years ahead of the private sector, but it's not clear how true this is. That number is commonly cited as a result of changes the NSA made to D…

It seems unlikely that a document produced to justify funding would ever offer up anything which could give anyone a moments pause before the nodding gesture sought.

After all, it would be fairly damning if the NSA were defending a high crypto budget by filling the document with hyperbole, just as it would be a trifle suspicious if they suddenly cut the department to a couple of well fed nerds and a years supply of sharp pencils and Mountain Dew.

The meagre sentences in this document seem to sit in the bureaucratic sweet spot of positive but vague.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#103

Post by eru »

thesteamboat wrote: post #75
genwin wrote: post #59

Is there a reason why the groundbreaking crypto-cracking could not be a quantum computer that tries all possible passwords/keys simultaneously? (I'm no expert on this subject.)

Yes, because this is not how quantum computers work. That is, they don't perform all computation paths non deterministically and then give you the 'right' answer. The answer that you get is a composition of all paths; it is not known how to use this to solve NP-complete problems. On the other hand, most modern encryption systems are based on the assumption that factoring is a difficult problem. Famously, quantum comp…

> [...] but there are in fact cryptosystems (such as lattice cryptography) that are secure against quantum computers.

Or at least: (currently) not more vulnerable to quantum computer than to classical computers.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#104

Post by count »

zachrose wrote: post #15

Mostly I'm surprised at the pay distribution on page 9 of the included document. GS pay tops out around $117k. Is that how much we're paying for top level cryptography research? Do contractors like Snowden get to make $200k because that's just what their consulting firm bills for?

GS base pay tops out at $117. There are many GS's making much more than that (also, the IC uses a non-GS scale, specifically for that reason).

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#105

Post by count »

frank_boyd wrote: post #9

> The Post said it withheld the rest, and kept some information out of its reporting, in consultation with the Obama administration to protect U.S. intelligence sources and methods. Weird. Why now? They (admin) refused to do that with WikiLeaks.

Nothing that wikileaks released was even remotely as damaging as what might be in the Snowden docs. The wikileaks leaks were all Secret, Snowden is releasing Top Secret stuff. The difference is quite severe.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#106

Post by rgbrenner »

damarquis wrote: post #87
ktsmith wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple data points suggesting the NSA is/was ahead of public researchers. There's the sbox changes to DES in the 70's when differential cryptanalysis wasn't publicly discovered till the 80's. The revisions between SHA-0 and SHA-1 (the attack the changes prevent weren't found for at least 5 years). The Dual EC DRBG random number generator they supplied to NIST that many people suspect of being compromisabl…

"..that many people suspect of being compromisable by NSA etc." If it was a backdoor you certainly can't count it among the NSAs successes. It is never used.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_strange_st...

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#107

Post by sanderjd »

steauengeglase wrote: post #36
sandstrom wrote: post #17

I wonder why do newspapers insist on labelling Snowden a 'leaker'. Why not 'whistleblower', or 'privacy advocate'?

'Leaker' is the closest thing to neutral. With most people he is either a 'whistle-blower' or a 'traitor'.

Hmm, this makes sense, but I think they need to find a new neutral word - leaker seems to have moved significantly closer to "traitor" than to "whistle-blower" amongst most of the people I talk to.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#108

Post by smsm42 »

rbanffy wrote: post #83
smsm42 wrote: post #79

I wonder what is top secret there? Those things look quite mundane to me and I don't really understand how revealing, for example, that $1 bn is spent on "mission ground stations" would hurt national security. Revealing more deep details - maybe, I can see it, but on this level it doesn't look like it should be secret at the first place.

Intelligence is like this. You piece together seemingly random information from several sources. A tells he ate pasta on Wednesday and you know he had dinner with B because B withdrew money from an ATM next to an Italian restaurant before B's partner phoned B, who, after two hours, bought a bag of diapers on a convenience store on the route between the said restaurant and B's home.

What you're talking about are details. What I'm talking about is very coarse statistics. If you knew I spent $1000 on restaurants last year, what would it tell you about my meeting with B? Probably nothing.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#109

Post by dredmorbius »

zachrose wrote: post #15

Mostly I'm surprised at the pay distribution on page 9 of the included document. GS pay tops out around $117k. Is that how much we're paying for top level cryptography research? Do contractors like Snowden get to make $200k because that's just what their consulting firm bills for?

Don't forget that that's $117k plus full government benefits, including pension (who has those any more) and job security pretty much for life.

You might be able to do better than that all told on the outside. You might not.

It's "don't have to worry about too much" money (though with inflation it's less that than it used to be), but not "I'm rich" money.

Re: New Snowden Leak Reports 'Groundbreaking' NSA Crypto-Cracking

#110

Post by mattstreet »

powertower wrote: post #73

It's one thing to leak documents about the NSA being in a grey area in regards to US citizens rights. But this last month or so all the articles I see here are about Snowden trying to actively 1) attempt to hurt the USA and 2) attempt to embarrass the USA. I don't get it? What is he thinking he is doing?

Are we blaming him that so many of our actions are embarrassing? Or that they come back to hurt us later?
Post reply on HN