PRIVACY Forum Archive Document
|
PRIVACY Forum Digest Thursday, 6 May 1993 Volume 02 : Issue 16 Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com) Vortex Technology, Topanga, CA, U.S.A. ===== PRIVACY FORUM ===== The PRIVACY Forum digest is supported in part by the ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy. CONTENTS Clipper Discussions in PRIVACY Forum (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Where do Clipper keys come from? (John R. Levine) Master Keys in Clipper Scheme (Bob Baldwin) New NIST/NSA Revelations (David Sobel) *** Please include a RELEVANT "Subject:" line on all submissions! *** *** Submissions without them may be ignored! *** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond. The moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and content. Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged. ALL submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant "Subject:" lines may be ignored. Excessive "signatures" on submissions are subject to editing. Subscriptions are by an automatic "listserv" system; for subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word "help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to: "privacy-request@vortex.com". Mailing list problems should be reported to "list-maint@vortex.com". All submissions included in this digest represent the views of the individual authors and all submissions will be considered to be distributable without limitations. The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp ftp.vortex.com", in the "/privacy" directory. Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and enter your e-mail address as the password. The typical "README" and "INDEX" files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP access. PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via e-mail through the listserv system. Please follow the instructions above for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access the PRIVACY Forum archive. All PRIVACY Forum materials are also available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on site "gopher.vortex.com/". For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please send an inquiry to privacy-fax@vortex.com, call (310) 455-9300, or FAX to (310) 455-2364. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUME 02, ISSUE 16 Quote for the day: "You Rang?" -- Lurch (Ted Cassidy) "The Addams Family" (1964-1966) -- Maynard G. Krebs (Bob Denver) "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" (1959-1963) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 May 93 21:27 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Clipper Discussions in PRIVACY Forum Greetings. Some of the most recent group of submissions for PRIVACY Forum relating to Clipper were rather heavy on "hard-core" cryptographic details, or were largely political statements (on both sides of the political fence). The former really go beyond the scope of this forum, while the latter would serve mainly to trigger even more highly politicized responses. I don't feel that either of these categories would be of too much interest to the readership at large of PRIVACY Forum. The Clipper-related messages that I've run in this issue of the digest are those that I felt would be the most interesting while maintaining the digest's focus. A moderator's lot is not a simple one. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 23:37:35 EDT From: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> Subject: Where do Clipper keys come from? One of the creepiest aspects of the Clipper proposal, and one that I haven't seen mentioned except in passing, is the process by which the chip keys are created. The chip key is a function of the chip's serial number, called N in Dorothy Denning's summary, and two master keys called S1 and S2, which are scambled together deterministically to produce the unit keys U1 and U2. The escrow houses keep U1 and U2. But if you know the S1 and S2 used to program a chip, you can recompute its keys. Nobody has said anything about where S1 and S2 come from, and how many chips are programmed using a particular S1 and S2. A plausible worst case scenario is that there is only a single S1 and S2 used for all chips, and they were helpfully provided by the NSA. This, of course, makes the whole key escrow scheme a sham. I'd think that it would be technically straightforward to use random numbers (I mean real random numbers, from a radioactive or similar source) as the U1 and U2. Either the escrow house representatives could each bring a random number generator to the programming vault, with the outputs XOR-ed in case one of them was cheating, or if the generators emit random bits too slowly, each escrow representative could bring a tape of random numbers (the well known one-time pad) which is destroyed after being used. It is hard to see any reason for the Clipper key generation scheme other than to provide a back door to someone who knows S1 and S2. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 93 15:40:26 GMT From: baldwin@lat.com (Bob Baldwin) Subject: Master Keys in Clipper Scheme When I looked at the details of the key generation scheme for the Clipper chips which Dorthy Denning described in V02 #14 of the privacy digest, I noticed that there are also two "master keys", S1 and S2 that would allow a government agency to decrypt the messages sent by thousands of machines. If I know S1 and S2 and the machine's 30 bit serial number, then I can compute the secret key, U, for that machine. Notice that the serial number is chosen from a conveniently small space 2**30, which is easy to search exhaustively. Knowing S1 and S2 allows me to decrypt any message sent by any machine that was initialized from S1 and S2. The key questions (:-) to ask are: what are the guidelines about handling S1 and S2? How can a customer know whether S1 and S2 were destroyed? How many other machines where made with the same S1 and S2? --Bob Baldwin Los Altos Technologies ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:09:12 EST From: David Sobel <dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org> Subject: New NIST/NSA Revelations Less than three weeks after the White House announced a controversial initiative to secure the nation's electronic communications with government-approved cryptography, newly released documents raise serious questions about the process that gave rise to the administration's proposal. The documents, released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, suggest that the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) dominates the process of establishing security standards for civilian computer systems in contravention of the intent of legislation Congress enacted in 1987. The released material concerns the development of the Digital Signature Standard (DSS), a cryptographic method for authenticating the identity of the sender of an electronic communication and for authenticating the integrity of the data in that communication. NIST publicly proposed the DSS in August 1991 and initially made no mention of any NSA role in developing the standard, which was intended for use in unclassified, civilian communications systems. NIST finally conceded that NSA had, in fact, developed the technology after Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) filed suit against the agency for withholding relevant documents. The proposed DSS was widely criticized within the computer industry for its perceived weak security and inferiority to an existing authentication technology known as the RSA algorithm. Many observers have speculated that the RSA technique was disfavored by NSA because it was, in fact, more secure than the NSA-proposed algorithm and because the RSA technique could also be used to encrypt data very securely. The newly-disclosed documents -- released in heavily censored form at the insistence of NSA -- suggest that NSA was not merely involved in the development process, but dominated it. NIST and NSA worked together on the DSS through an intra-agency Technical Working Group (TWG). The documents suggest that the NIST-NSA relationship was contentious, with NSA insisting upon secrecy throughout the deliberations. A NIST report dated January 31, 1990, states that The members of the TWG acknowledged that the efforts expended to date in the determination of a public key algorithm which would be publicly known have not been successful. It's increasingly evident that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the concerns and requirements of NSA, NIST and the general public through using this approach. The civilian agency's frustration is also apparent in a July 21, 1990, memo from the NIST members of the TWG to NIST director John W. Lyons. The memo suggests that "national security" concerns hampered efforts to develop a standard: THE NIST/NSA Technical Working Group (TWG) has held 18 meetings over the past 13 months. A part of every meeting has focused on the NIST intent to develop a Public Key Standard Algorithm Standard. We are convinced that the TWG process has reached a point where continuing discussions of the public key issue will yield only marginal results. Simply stated, we believe that over the past 13 months we have explored the technical and national security equity issues to the point where a decision is required on the future direction of digital signature standards. An October 19, 1990, NIST memo discussing possible patent issues surrounding DSS noted that those questions would need to be addressed "if we ever get our NSA problem settled." Although much of the material remains classified and withheld from disclosure, the "NSA problem" was apparently the intelligence agency's demand that perceived "national security" considerations take precedence in the development of the DSS. From the outset, NSA cloaked the deliberations in secrecy. For instance, at the March 22, 1990, meeting of the TWG, NSA representatives presented NIST with NSA's classified proposal for a DSS algorithm. NIST's report of the meeting notes that The second document, classified TOP SECRET CODEWORD, was a position paper which discussed reasons for the selection of the algorithms identified in the first document. This document is available at NSA for review by properly cleared senior NIST officials. In other words, NSA presented highly classified material to NIST justifying NSA's selection of the proposed algorithm -- an algorithm intended to protect and authenticate unclassified information in civilian computer systems. The material was so highly classified that "properly cleared senior NIST officials" were required to view the material at NSA's facilities. These disclosures are disturbing for two reasons. First, the process as revealed in the documents contravenes the intent of Congress embodied in the Computer Security Act of 1987. Through that legislation, Congress intended to remove NSA from the process of developing civilian computer security standards and to place that responsibility with NIST, a civilian agency. Congress expressed a particular concern that NSA, a military intelligence agency, would improperly limit public access to information in a manner incompatible with civilian standard setting. The House Report on the legislation noted that NSA's natural tendency to restrict and even deny access to information that it deems important would disqualify that agency from being put in charge of the protection of non-national security information in the view of many officials in the civilian agencies and the private sector. While the Computer Security Act contemplated that NSA would provide NIST with "technical assistance" in the development of civilian standards, the newly released documents demonstrate that NSA has crossed that line and dominates the development process. The second reason why this material is significant is because of what it reveals about the process that gave rise to the so- called "Clipper" chip proposed by the administration earlier this month. Once again, NIST was identified as the agency actually proposing the new encryption technology, with "technical assistance" from NSA. Once again, the underlying information concerning the development process is classified. DSS was the first test of the Computer Security Act's division of labor between NIST and NSA. Clipper comes out of the same "collaborative" process. The newly released documents suggest that NSA continues to dominate the government's work on computer security and to cloak the process in secrecy, contrary to the clear intent of Congress. On the day the Clipper initiative was announced, CPSR submitted FOIA requests to key agencies -- including NIST and NSA -- for information concerning the proposal. CPSR will pursue those requests, as well as the pending litigation concerning NSA involvement in the development of the Digital Signature Standard. Before any meaningful debate can occur on the direction of cryptography policy, essential government information must be made public -- as Congress intended when it passed the Computer Security Act. CPSR is committed to that goal. *************************************************** David L. Sobel CPSR Legal Counsel (202) 544-9240 dsobel@washofc.cpsr.org ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 02.16 ************************
Copyright © 2005 Vortex Technology. All Rights Reserved.