11–20 of 195 posts
As far as I can tell, this is using CBC mode without any authentication: https://raw.github.com/mdp/gibberish-aes/master/dist/gibberi... If that's the case, then this implementation is vulnerable to a variety of attacks.
This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
Did they figure out how to tap complicated SSL? Is it hardware based? He gave no hints but could have easily.
Instead it's this blanket statement that's supposed to imply that all encryption is pointless.
This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
Why did he not give even a small technical overview on what they are capable of? He should've been able to given he has a lot of technical expertise and it would've helped his evidence a lot. Did they figure out how to tap complicated SSL? Is it hardware based? He gave no hints but could have easily. Instead it's this blanket statement that's supposed to imply that all encryption is pointless.
Still waiting for Google to implement OTR and ZRTP in Hangouts by default... especially now after all this.
1. Google is removing XMPP as protocol http://www.zdnet.com/google-moves-away-from-the-xmpp-open-me...
2. On the other hand, however, duckduck is giving us some alternatives https://duck.co/topic/duckduckgo-s-new-public-xmpp-jabber-se...
Still waiting for Google to implement OTR and ZRTP in Hangouts by default... especially now after all this.
This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
This talk about "bugs" in machines makes one wonder if that is related to why Intel was one of the companies mentioned in a recent article. Intel stands apart from the rest of the companies. Google, Apple, Facebook don't specialize in hardware.
Some interesting related reading on the XMPP with Raspberry Pi:
[1] http://russelldavis.org/2013/01/18/setting-up-prosody-on-the...
[2] http://oskarhane.com/make-your-raspberry-pis-and-other-serve...
This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
Why did he not give even a small technical overview on what they are capable of? He should've been able to given he has a lot of technical expertise and it would've helped his evidence a lot. Did they figure out how to tap complicated SSL? Is it hardware based? He gave no hints but could have easily. Instead it's this blanket statement that's supposed to imply that all encryption is pointless.