In response to the news of what's going on in Australia, Derek Zimmer over at Private Internet Access' blog covers split key cryptography and why government back doors don't/won't/can't work. Attempts to regulate cryptography have been going on for a long while and each try has failed. He starts with recent history, the cold war, and follows through to the latest attempts to stifle encryption. These past failures give a foundation which can be applied to the current situation in hopes of understanding why cryptographers around the world are universally against these kinds of schemes.
The new proposal touted by the NSA, GCHQ, The Australian government and others is a simple evolution of Key Escrow. The proposal is key escrow with split-key cryptography, which is just key escrow with extra steps. There is still a "Golden Key" that can decrypt all messages from a particular service, but this time, two or more entities have pieces of that key. The concept, popularized by a Microsoft researcher, is said to solve the problem of abuse, because all parties have to agree to decrypt the messages.
Earlier on SN:
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID
When's A Backdoor Not A Backdoor? When The Oz Government Says It Isn't
Australian Government Pursues "Golden Key" for Encryption
and more
Related Stories
The Australian Government believes that it needs a golden key to backdoor encryption within Australia via legislation. The Brits and the Yanks have both already had a nudge at this and both have conceded that requiring a backdoor to encryption is not viable but this will not stop the Australian Liberal Party from trying.
Digital rights experts have described the proposal as "ludicrous" as Cyber security minister Angus Taylor stating that the legislation would be presented for public comment within the next quarter. While the Australian Government has not detailed how it expects to gain access to encrypted data, companies may be penalized if they don't kowtow to the new laws. There is nothing to be discussed here that hasn't been said before other than the Australian Government sincerely believes it can force companies to divulge encrypted data to authorities on demand.
Australia's promised “not-a-backdoor” crypto-busting bill is out and the government has kept its word - it doesn't want a backdoor, just the keys to your front one.
The draft of The Assistance and Access Bill 2018 calls for anyone using or selling communications services in Australia will be subject to police orders for access to private data.
That includes all vendors of computers, phones, apps, social media and cloud services in the Lucky Country, and anyone within national borders using them. These data-tapping orders will be enforced with fines of up to AU$10m (US$7.3m) for companies or $50,000 ($36,368) for individuals
The draft legislation also wants five years in prison for anyone who reveals a data-slurping investigation is going on. And while there's no explicit encryption backdoor requirements in the 110 page draft bill, our first look suggests there doesn't need to be.
Apple argues stronger encryption will thwart criminals in letter to Australian government
Apple has long been a proponent for strong on-device encryption, most notably for its iPhones and the iOS operating system. This has often frustrated law enforcement agencies both in the US and overseas, many of which claim the company's encryption tools and policies are letting criminals avoid capture by masking communications and securing data from the hands of investigators.
Now, in a letter to the Australian government, Apple says it thinks encryption is in fact a benefit and public good that will only strength our protections against cyberattacks and terrorism. In Apple's eyes, encryption makes everyone's devices harder to hack and less vulnerable to take-overs, viruses, and other malicious attacks that could undermine personal and corporate security, as well as public infrastructure and services. Apple is specifically responding to the Australian Parliament's Assistance and Access Bill, which was introduced late last month and is designed to help the government more easily access the devices and data of criminals during active investigations.
Letter here (#53), or at Scribd and DocumentCloud.
Also at Ars Technica, Engadget, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider.
Police told to avoid looking at recent iPhones to avoid lockouts
Police have yet to completely wrap their heads around modern iPhones like the X and XS, and that's clearer than ever thanks to a leak. Motherboard has obtained a presentation slide from forensics company Elcomsoft telling law enforcement to avoid looking at iPhones with Face ID. If they gaze at it too many times (five), the company said, they risk being locked out much like Apple's Craig Federighi was during the iPhone X launch event. They'd then have to enter a passcode that they likely can't obtain under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from having to provide self-incriminating testimony.
Also at 9to5Mac.
Related:
California Lawmaker Tries Hand at Banning Encryption
New York Judge Sides with Apple Rather than FBI in Dispute over a Locked iPhone
FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Hacker Decrypts Apple's Secure Enclave Processor (SEP) Firmware
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
Law Enforcement Agencies Increasingly Cracking iPhones Using "GrayKey"
Australian Government Pursues "Golden Key" for Encryption
When's A Backdoor Not A Backdoor? When The Oz Government Says It Isn't
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
FBI Used Cooperative Suspect's Face to Unlock His iPhone
With the Australian Labor Party caving in on the proposed encryption law that will allow Australian police and agencies to access private data directly from vendors, the new proposed laws are now agreed in principle to introduce government level snooping of user messages and encrypted files. Agencies like ASIO or the Australian Federal Police will have the ability to request that telecommunications and tech companies help them with their investigations and compel companies to build ways to allow targeted access to encrypted communications data.
Previously: Australian Government Pursues "Golden Key" for Encryption
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID
Australia follows New Zealand to demand passwords
New Australian Push For Encryption Backdoor in Wake of Alleged Terrorist Plot
FBI: End-to-End Encryption Is an Infectious Problem
Just in case there were any lingering doubts about U.S. law enforcement's stance on end-to-end encryption, which prevents information from being read by anyone but its intended recipient, FBI executive assistant director Amy Hess told the Wall Street Journal this week that its use "is a problem that infects law enforcement and the intelligence community more and more so every day."
The quote was published in a piece about efforts from the UK, Australia and India to undermine end-to-end encryption. All three countries have passed or proposed legislation that compels tech companies to supply certain information to government agencies. The laws vary in their specifics, including restrictions on to what information law enforcement can request access, but the gist is that they don't want any data to be completely inaccessible.
Related: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"
Five Eyes Governments Get Even Tougher on Encryption
Apple Speaks Out Against Australian Anti-Encryption Law; Police Advised Not to Trigger Face ID
Australia Set to Pass Controversial Encryption Law
Split Key Cryptography is Back... Again – Why Government Back Doors Don't Work
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @07:55AM (4 children)
Unless those parties all share the key with someone else, or their keys are stolen, then abuse is guaranteed. On the level of heists I think these keys would pay very well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday December 09 2018, @03:22PM (2 children)
Let's see...
Party one: corporation, forbidden to resist the government with force
Party two: government, with basically unlimited supply of force: toadies, guns, owns the courts
...sure, this will solve the problem of abuse. We can all go home now.
/s
--
Ignorance is weakness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:01PM (1 child)
Who needs a super computer or secret courts? That shit is expensive. Last i heard you can get a plumber to brring his wremches direct to you for 90-150.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:35PM
That's government thinking.
Corporate types send an intern to Ace or Home Depot to buy a drywall hammer (look it up) for a coupla sawbucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @09:06AM
Losing that master key is only one way in which this weakens encryption.
The fact that a second key exists to decrypt the message into the same original content creates a huge attack surface to find that second key. I don't know enough cryptography to tell how easy it is.
But you have one or even multiple of key's, and any number of messages with any content you like. That gives you a very big load of information to go after a very high value target like a master key.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:35AM (1 child)
cause no one has ever broken that like ever
or for bluray
or games
nup no noway
all secure fred.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday December 10 2018, @04:51PM
...and no government database has ever been leaked either, right?
https://digitalguardian.com/blog/top-10-biggest-us-government-data-breaches-all-time [digitalguardian.com]
Let's see...in the past five years, just based on a a top-ten list, that's around 215 million keys leaked from government databases. And they now want the only thing standing between criminals and my entire life to be one key leaking from a government database...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @12:21PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday December 09 2018, @01:33PM (6 children)
I assume it is obvious, but just in case: "two or more entities have pieces of that key"
This does not improve security. The key will be used, which means that it will be assembled. At that point in time, a single entity has the entire key. Given basic human laziness, that key will be saved - and is just as insecure as ever.
Moreover, having a single key to rule them all means that encryption keys are no longer in the hands of the people requiring security - they cannot be changed at will. This and many, many, many other reasons make key escrow a stupid idea.
Rope, lamppost, politician: some assembly required.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @01:57PM (1 child)
Make the politicians live under these rules for 5 years before the general public has to. Let's see how long their privacy lasts under split key cryptography.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 09 2018, @03:26PM
XDDDD that's so great!!! 2bad it won't happen
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by exaeta on Sunday December 09 2018, @03:48PM (3 children)
A better solution is to double encrypt the key. I.e. it's encrypted to the government and the version encrypted to the government is encrypted to the corporation.
The government can't decrypt it because the version they need to decrypt it is encrypted to the corporation. The corporation could decrypt the token but not the final message without the government's key.
In the U.S. this would raise Fifth Amendment and First Amendment issues (right against self incrimination and right to anonymous speech) but I don't see why orwellian countries like Australia couldn't move ahead with it. :)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:42PM (2 children)
Uh...the net result is exactly the same as split-key. Using either scheme requires 2 parties to decrypt the message.
One party issues business licenses, controls an army, and can lock up CEO's. The other party employs people, pays taxes, and raises a country's GDP. This unholy alliance will not hesitate to collude to control the population.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday December 10 2018, @04:59PM (1 child)
It's not exactly the same, precisely because you don't ever need to reassemble the keys. The first party can decrypt using the first key, then pass the partially decrypted data to the second party who completes decryption using the second key. Nobody ever needs both keys together. Not even in RAM somewhere.
Yes, the government could confiscate the key, in which case it's no longer complying with the law, in which case it doesn't matter what encryption scheme they wrote into the law since they're just ignoring the damn thing anyway. That's not much different than the current situation. And that's the real issue. It doesn't matter what law they write, because we already have ample proof that they aren't going to obey it anyway...
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:20PM
Yeah. Anyone who can't see the big difference really doesn't need to be involved in cryptography (except for learning purposes, of course).
God help anyone who tries to explain the differences though. Most people don't seem to understand the fundamentals of information security and can't seem to grasp it either, for some reason. In their mind, the result is the same, so it's the same thing. But they don't understand the differences in information exposure, nor do they even care to think about it. This is one reason hacks and compromises are so common.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 3, Interesting) by exaeta on Sunday December 09 2018, @03:42PM (5 children)
Speaking as a crypto nerd, our computer systems today aren't secure enough to handle data of that level of senstivity. Though it could work in principle if each message was encrypted with a transient key and that key is encrypted twice, once to the corp and once to the government, thsi could in theory allow decryption of messages with joint consent. Now the issue would simply become "what if both keys are stolen" instead of just one key. Much more secure than before, but the fundamental issue is the same.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:33PM (3 children)
I'd say that the fundamental issue is that it is far easier to manufacture your own secure crypto than it is to build a flint-lock rifle, anybody who cares can hire it done for a trivial cost. Thus: when secure crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have secure crypto.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)
it's maths. It cannot be erased or hidden, unless there is "Pol Pot" type of human fuckery that goes on and kill everyone that can multiply...
This is a complete grab for power, no matter how "desirable" the fantasy LEO access is - it's impossible to have a secure third party.
At least , it is in this universe*
*your universe may have different physics, but the mathematics is *the same*
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 10 2018, @12:22AM (1 child)
You can put the crypto-genie back in the bottle: by taking computers away from the masses.
Kinda like putting the music piracy genie back in the bottle: by taking tape recorders away from the masses.
I do like the fact that Mickey Mouse will FINALLY be going off copyright, because the political climate has turned enough that Disney knows better than to attempt another extension now. Education of the masses is all it took.
As for crypto, maybe in another 30 years the masses will "get it" solidly enough that the spooks know better than to try anything like this in the open anymore.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday December 10 2018, @11:54AM
pencil and paper is all that's needed for crypto.
With what we know now, many pre-industrial age mathematicians would be able to make workable systems.
Remember, our ancestors were every bit as inventive as we are.
They just didn't have TV....;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10 2018, @03:04PM
Not secure enough? Really? It was done with Lotus Notes: https://www.cryptologie.net/article/207/one-example-of-a-crypto-backdoor-nsas-backdoor-in-lotus-notes/ [cryptologie.net]
You can do the similar thing - encrypt X bits (not all) of the session/message key using the Gov's public key. Or a variation with secret sharing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_sharing#Efficient_secret_sharing [wikipedia.org]
So even if it leaks, some random hacker isn't going to spend that much resources brute forcing the rest of the bits. Whereas if the Gov runs a huge supercomputer to crack your porn stash you might actually have a good laugh out of it (assuming you don't have any illegal porn).
In reality the dangers of unbreakable crypto are overstated AND the dangers of breakable crypto are overstated too[1]. People have been using plaintext credit cards or similarly zero-level crypto stuff for financial transactions and the world didn't end. And my bet is that in most cases even if terrorists are stupid enough to use breakable crypto all that'll result in is the Gov will be able to decrypt their stuff AFTER they've committed the crimes. Many of those terrorists in Europe didn't use unbreakable crypto and they still didn't get stopped - they used burner phones ( https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/paris-terrorist-attacks-burner-phones-not-encryption/ [arstechnica.com] )
[1] Since if you really cared you'd secretly use unbreakable crypto too and/or have your secrets in a different country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09 2018, @05:07PM
"The concept, popularized by a Microsoft researcher"
someone should teach that whore a lesson.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @05:39PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DabdHbkWkAAJ_pC.jpg [twimg.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.