Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#251

Post by retroafroman » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:22 PM UTC

nickbauman wrote: post #228

akshatpradhan wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But I think it might be a little disingenuous to use Osama Bin Laden's crypto practices as an example. I believe this is the more interesting story of what really happened with Bin Laden? >Pakistan secretly captures Bin Laden by bribing tribesmen. The US finds out by bribing Pakistani officials. Further bribes with foreign aid money get other Pakistani officials to issue…

Those are some pretty big claims, have any evidence to back them up?

This IIRC is essentially the story reported by investigative journalist Sy Hersh, relying on unnamed sources. See here for the full read: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-...

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#252

Post by ljf » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

akshatpradhan wrote: post #224

the_watcher wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is always the part of the anti-Snowden case that baffled me. Those who seem to think that he alerted terrorists to the most secure means of communication seem to assume that, prior to the Snowden leaks, they were communicating by yelling really loudly across the NSA buildings. It's like they simply forgot about the biggest reason it took so long to find Osama bin Laden: he was so security-concerned that he used…

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But I think it might be a little disingenuous to use Osama Bin Laden's crypto practices as an example. I believe this is the more interesting story of what really happened with Bin Laden? >Pakistan secretly captures Bin Laden by bribing tribesmen. The US finds out by bribing Pakistani officials. Further bribes with foreign aid money get other Pakistani officials to issue…

The other 'wild' claim I heard was that his compound was actually a prison, built especially to house him. Again no proof, but an interesting idea none the less.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#253

Post by tripzilch » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:24 PM UTC

> The Times later posted a second article citing an anonymous “European counterterrorism official” who was quoted saying authorities’ “working assumption is that these guys were very security aware,”

We should make laws against security awareness if it enables terrorists!

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#254

Post by nickbauman » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

nickbauman wrote: post #228

akshatpradhan wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. But I think it might be a little disingenuous to use Osama Bin Laden's crypto practices as an example. I believe this is the more interesting story of what really happened with Bin Laden? >Pakistan secretly captures Bin Laden by bribing tribesmen. The US finds out by bribing Pakistani officials. Further bribes with foreign aid money get other Pakistani officials to issue…

Those are some pretty big claims, have any evidence to back them up?

Thank you! Ok I remember when that story broke but I didn't read the details. Seymour Hersh is such a respected and renowned journalist who has a track record for revealing exactly this stuff. But the lack of openness in the sources is disquieting. But the story is so odious and so serious, I suspect there are no sources that could weather the storm regardless.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#255

Post by vidarh » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:30 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #245

rbcgerard wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indulging this fantasy, it begs the question of whether those (enencrypted) communications would have been targeted and flagged for analysis

How does it beg the question? There is no truth being asserted in the premise causing the conclusion to be true. It's fairly clear that it was a statement from an original source, that source being trustworthy is where we would find (or not find) the information which would show the conclusion to be true, not the premise of the 'fantasy.'

Give it up. In 30+ years of learning English, the only times I've ever seen it used in that sense has been when someone is being a pedant on forums and illustrating the now rapidly outmoded meaning of the phrase.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#256

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #245

rbcgerard wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indulging this fantasy, it begs the question of whether those (enencrypted) communications would have been targeted and flagged for analysis

How does it beg the question? There is no truth being asserted in the premise causing the conclusion to be true. It's fairly clear that it was a statement from an original source, that source being trustworthy is where we would find (or not find) the information which would show the conclusion to be true, not the premise of the 'fantasy.'

[deleted]

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#257

Post by noselfrighteous » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:37 PM UTC

nickbauman wrote: post #225

the_watcher wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is always the part of the anti-Snowden case that baffled me. Those who seem to think that he alerted terrorists to the most secure means of communication seem to assume that, prior to the Snowden leaks, they were communicating by yelling really loudly across the NSA buildings. It's like they simply forgot about the biggest reason it took so long to find Osama bin Laden: he was so security-concerned that he used…

The most dangerous terrorists have probably already reverted to couriers with one-time pads. One-time pads are uncrackable, yet they were used extensively before modern cryptography was even invented. They're cumbersome and constrained but very effective. No amount of mass surveillance will alter their efficacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

So I read the wiki on the One-time pad and there's something I'm a little stuck on. There's a statement (paraphrasing) that the OTP is immune to cryptanalysis (brute force) because any given key translates to all possible plain-text, and the viable words all have a-priori the same likelihood.

The thing I'm stuck on though, isn't it still possible to do semantic analysis on the various permutations. Basically reading permutations for cogent statements? So do some sort of a-posteriori analysis

Infeasible for a human to do, but assuming one could construct a significantly advanced parser (non-trivial of course), wouldn't it be possible to brute force still? What am I missing?

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#258

Post by pdenya » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

noselfrighteous wrote: post #257

nickbauman wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most dangerous terrorists have probably already reverted to couriers with one-time pads. One-time pads are uncrackable, yet they were used extensively before modern cryptography was even invented. They're cumbersome and constrained but very effective. No amount of mass surveillance will alter their efficacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

So I read the wiki on the One-time pad and there's something I'm a little stuck on. There's a statement (paraphrasing) that the OTP is immune to cryptanalysis (brute force) because any given key translates to all possible plain-text, and the viable words all have a-priori the same likelihood. The thing I'm stuck on though, isn't it still possible to do semantic analysis on the various permutations. Basically reading…

The key is the same size as the message. Each letter translates the corresponding letter and no others. You could make a key to translate the message to anything with the same number of letters.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#259

Post by colinshark » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

noselfrighteous wrote: post #257

nickbauman wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most dangerous terrorists have probably already reverted to couriers with one-time pads. One-time pads are uncrackable, yet they were used extensively before modern cryptography was even invented. They're cumbersome and constrained but very effective. No amount of mass surveillance will alter their efficacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

So I read the wiki on the One-time pad and there's something I'm a little stuck on. There's a statement (paraphrasing) that the OTP is immune to cryptanalysis (brute force) because any given key translates to all possible plain-text, and the viable words all have a-priori the same likelihood. The thing I'm stuck on though, isn't it still possible to do semantic analysis on the various permutations. Basically reading…

The message has an equally probably of decoding to ANY message. You essentially have no information to work with.

Re: Times Pulls Article Blaming Encryption in Paris Terror Attack

#260

Post by tripzilch » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

I believe the conclusion of the article is the most important takeaway: (so, points for good writing, I guess :) )

> Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said he suspects the Paris attacks will weigh heavily on the encryption fight ongoing.

> “I think what we’re going to learn is that these guys are communicating via these encrypted apps, the commercial encryption, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for governments to break, and the producers of which don’t produce the keys necessary for law enforcement to read the encrypted messages,” Morell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.

> “We need to have a public debate about this,” he continued. “We have in a sense had a public debate — that debate was defined by Edward Snowden, and the concern about privacy. I think we’re now going to have another debate about that — it’s going to be defined by what happened in Paris.”

So, "They" want to misuse the attacks on Paris as an excuse to attract mind and screen-time for an alternative counter-debate about privacy and encryption. But Snowden got to "define the debate" because of the new information (as well as evidence for old information) he brought to the public, it's an entirely different thing if you're a politician grabbing screen-time and "define the debate" to a shocked audience over a terror-attack--which is exactly what the terrorists' want. Any freedoms or security taken away from us as a response to a terror-attack, is a win for the terrorists.