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

XKeyscore

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: XKeyscore

#51

Post by monerozcash »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #47
monerozcash wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think going from "lol we can read and store all the emails sent by everybody" to "lol we can hack any specific person and then read their emails" indicates a massive loss of capability. The first approach enabled them to find targets that were not on their radar based on message contents, they can no longer do that.

They still read emails. No doubt they're inside Google, Microsoft, Apple. They might not be inside Proton Mail, it uses PGP but keys are stored server side so I wouldn't know. No doubt they still read texts. I think the US is still among the countries that use SMS a lot. They no doubt have access to the data big tech's mined out of the entire world's population. That capability alone puts them into "bring everything…

>They still read emails. No doubt they're inside Google, Microsoft, Apple. They might not be inside Proton Mail, it uses PGP but keys are stored server side so I wouldn't know.

I don't doubt for a second that they can read specific emails, but to suggest that they have bulk collection capabilities within Google or Microsoft is a stretch. NSA lacks the legal authority to compel that, NSA lacks the money to bribe Google or Microsoft and NSA likely lacks the political backing to put the biggest US companies in such a compromised position.

>I think the US is still among the countries that use SMS a lot.

Sure, but that's increasingly iMessage.

Re: XKeyscore

#52

Post by matheusmoreira »

themafia wrote: post #16
monerozcash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSAs collection capabilities have been greatly degraded. They can no longer read all internet traffic, basically everything is encrypted now. NSA does not have magic tools to break modern encryption.

So instead of collecting at AT&T Room 631 you now collect at Google Room Whatever. The NSA has spent no small amount of time in the last decade obviously interfering with NIST and public encryption standards. The obvious reason is they _want_ to have the magic tools to break some modern encryption.

Brief list of NSA backdoors:

https://www.ethanheilman.com/x/12/index.html

Re: XKeyscore

#53

Post by monerozcash »

snorbleck wrote: post #36
monerozcash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSAs collection capabilities have been greatly degraded. They can no longer read all internet traffic, basically everything is encrypted now. NSA does not have magic tools to break modern encryption.

store now... decrypt later...

Sure, why not. If quantum computers capable of factoring sufficiently large numbers ever arrive, we'll be living in a very different world anyway.

Re: XKeyscore

#54

Post by cperciva »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #30
monerozcash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSAs collection capabilities have been greatly degraded. They can no longer read all internet traffic, basically everything is encrypted now. NSA does not have magic tools to break modern encryption.

They don't break encryption, they circumvent it. They get into people's computers and access the stored data after it's been decrypted. They stockpile zero day vulnerabilities and use them against their targets in order to install persistent malware. They intercept equipment and literally implant hardware onto the PCBs that let them access the networks. They have access to hordes of government CCTVs. They have real t…

They don't break encryption, they circumvent it.

To quote a former Chief Scientist of the NSA, Rule #1 of cryptanalysis is "look for plaintext". Implementation flaws are very common.

Re: XKeyscore

#55

Post by viccis »

runjake wrote: post #29

Being familiar with the USG classification system, I was thrown off by the beginning of this article. It doesn't sound like something that would be classified merely as Secret. The article begins with: > XKeyscore (XKEYSCORE or XKS) is a secret computer system used by... This should be edited to: > XKeyscore (XKEYSCORE or XKS) is a classified computer system used by... The program is allegedly a Top Secret program.

Saying something is "secret" is not the same as saying it is "classified Secret"

Re: XKeyscore

#56

Post by viccis »

monerozcash wrote: post #3

The most interesting detail about the whole XKeyscore story is that it was apparently not leaked by Snowden https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/07/nsa_targets_p... https://www.reuters.com/article/opinion/commentary-evidence-... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/11/second-leake... It is possible that the "second source" and the shadow brokers are one and the same. https://www.electrospaces.net/2017/…

The Guardian sourced information about it to Snowden's leaks in 2013. What makes you think it's from a separate leaker, and that it's the same leaker as the "shadow brokers"? All I see is conjecture in those links.

Re: XKeyscore

#59

Post by throwawayq3423 »

i80and wrote: post #17
sdigf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm not aware of there being a single lick of evidence to suggest that kookery, but even if he was a Russian agent, he certainly accidentally provided Americans a laudable service.

The shadow brokers are almost certainly Russian intelligence.

Re: XKeyscore

#60

Post by hollow-moe »

monerozcash wrote: post #48
hollow-moe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They surely don't have any kind of access to letsencrypt root certs whatsoever

You can't decrypt anything with letsencrypt root certs, you can issue your own certificates but it would be impossible to use those at any significant scale. It's also worth considering that CT makes it extremely noisy to use such certificates to attack web browsers.

I'd bet they could absolutely proxy large parts of people and make use of these certs. I wonder how much are CT logs scrutinized, would these "rogue" certs be found easily because we can't find traces of them being generated by letsencrypt ? Browsers checks CRLs but are they checking CT logs to be ensure the cert they're checking was logged ?
Post reply on HN