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

Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 195 posts

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#51

Post by fintler »

freshhawk wrote: post #8

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 bother with bugs when they can just use van eck phreaking? I think it's safe to say that most cots hardware isn't tempest shielded.

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#52

Post by icelancer »

gnaritas wrote: post #48
steveklabnik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glenn Greenwald said on Twitter that he was given the technical details and isn't releasing them.

Glenn Greenwald is a partisan hack, his opinion is worth basically nothing.

Partisan towards... what? He is a very strong civil libertarian.

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#53

Post by phuff »

xefer wrote: post #45
tlrobinson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, if they had say, a backdoor in all Intel/AMD processors. The question is what he meant by "We can plant bugs in machines."

"We can plant bugs in machines" to me sounds more like a clue that this guy really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I think he meant bug as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_listening_device

whereas you might be understanding bug as in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#56

Post by mattstreet »

tlrobinson wrote: post #44
simgidacav wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you implement a decent backdoor in your hardware? Would it be supported by software? How do you force the TCP/IP stack of someone's FOSS operating system to send unwanted data? IMHO he was referring to some backdoor in software. How about a nice ubiquitous piece of software? Windows? JVM?

While it's a bit tinfoil hat, it's not impossible that there could be hardware backdoors in processors or other hardware triggered by a very specific sequences of packets.

What would be hard is also making sure that packet sniffers in the middle wouldn't be able to detect it. Specially with all the varieties of router hardware. Are we going to have a backdoor in all of them that prevents passing on that data?

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#57

Post by leot »

Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft could all make the vast majority of email vastly more secure by implementing PGP-by-default. Send: You enter an email address, a little key appears beside it if it's recognized as having an associated public key, and a warning appears that the email can't be encrypted if an additional email address is entered that doesn't have an associated key. Receive: email encrypted with your public key is colored "green" (for "secure") and the from address is colored "green" if it's been appropriately signed. With (and, I'd argue, only with) a webmail client can PGP be rapidly deployed and almost completely transparent.

But, this would make "intercepts" far more difficult, now, wouldn't it ...

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#58

Post by JJAbhrams2244 »

rorrr2 wrote: post #28
freshhawk wrote: post #8

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.…

"We can plant bugs in machines" doesn't mean that they can do it remotely. That would actually be a serious serious backdoor and would put all kinds of businesses in mortal danger - banking, credit card, online shopping, etc. Imagine what one rogue NSA employee can do with that kind of backdoor access. So ENCRYPT EVERYTHING, and don't believe this propaganda. If your hardware has a backdoor, you're fucked no matter w…

I see no reason that this couldn't be true. There are probably many checkpoints to access the backdoors. The reason they don't use it is because once they admit it, there would be a huge backlash

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#59

Post by JJAbhrams2244 »

rorrr2 wrote: post #28
freshhawk wrote: post #8

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.…

"We can plant bugs in machines" doesn't mean that they can do it remotely. That would actually be a serious serious backdoor and would put all kinds of businesses in mortal danger - banking, credit card, online shopping, etc. Imagine what one rogue NSA employee can do with that kind of backdoor access. So ENCRYPT EVERYTHING, and don't believe this propaganda. If your hardware has a backdoor, you're fucked no matter w…

I see no reason that this couldn't be true. There are probably many checkpoints to access the backdoors. The reason they don't use it is because once they admit it, there would be a huge backlash

Re: Encrypt your Google chats and make the NSA sad

#60

Post by JJAbhrams2244 »

rorrr2 wrote: post #28
freshhawk wrote: post #8

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.…

"We can plant bugs in machines" doesn't mean that they can do it remotely. That would actually be a serious serious backdoor and would put all kinds of businesses in mortal danger - banking, credit card, online shopping, etc. Imagine what one rogue NSA employee can do with that kind of backdoor access. So ENCRYPT EVERYTHING, and don't believe this propaganda. If your hardware has a backdoor, you're fucked no matter w…

I see no reason that this couldn't be true. There are probably many checkpoints to access the backdoors. The reason they don't use it is because once they admit it, there would be a huge backlash
Post reply on HN