Difference between revisions of "Encryption"
(add sections, trinm contributor's name) |
m (Text replacement - " backdoor" to " backdoor") |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|image=Encryption.png | |image=Encryption.png | ||
|constitutes=technology | |constitutes=technology | ||
| + | |description=A process of obscuring information so that it can only be read by a selected number of recipients. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | '''Encryption'' is the process of changing data from an understandable form into a scrambled form. | + | '''Encryption''' is the process of changing data from an understandable form into a scrambled form. The inverse process, of restoring the original data from the encrypted forms referred to as [[decryption]] (or deciphering). |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Official narrative== | |
| − | + | The {{ccm}} regularly have stories suggesting that a battle is ongoing between [[intelligence agencies]] and the [[technology]] companies, about the use of encryption, with the former seeking the ability to decrypt any message, and the latter attempting to protect their users' data from being read. This may well be mere [[smoke and mirrors]] to obscure the reality that a large proportion of all large companies' encryption products are cracked, whether by design or by faulty programming.<ref>https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbxxxd/unlock-iphone-ios11-graykey-grayshift-police</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Theory== | |
| − | Encryption has 3 to | + | Encryption has 3 to 6 parts: "M" a <i>Message</i>; "K" a <i>Key</i> to encrypt a message, and "C" the result resulting <i>Ciphertext</i> or Ciphered data. Part 4,5, and 6 may be additional keys that interact with other keys. These may be public keys and private keys, as used in either an RSA method or DH-ElGamal method. Other systems of key exchange, sharing keys in a secure manner, exist. |
| − | Part 4 and | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ===Keys=== |
| + | By analogy with doors, a "key" is needed to provide access to encrypted data. A "hardcoded" key is one that cannot be changed, e.g. with a software update. This can lead to a security breach if software creators lose control of their keys. Manufacturers continue to produce hardware wit this vulnerability.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/26/the_latest_killerapp_for_windows_10_lenovos_bugridden_fingerprint_software/</ref> | ||
| − | + | ==History== | |
| + | Digital Encryption dates to 1919 at AT&T Federal Labs in the financial district of [[New York City]]. A pioneer in this work was [[Gilbert Vernam]]. | ||
| + | ===Classic systems involved pencil and paper methods=== | ||
| − | + | One group of systems used letter tables and rules to change a text letter into a ciphered letter. Another method used a known rule to convert letters to numbers, and then performing an addition function with a key, to produce a ciphered text. Yet another example of an encryption method was to use a dictionary as a codebook, assigning words to the combination of page number, column, and entry of that column. See codebook; dictionary code. An illustrated example is generally known as the [http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/otfp_otlp.html One Time Key] method; versions being the <i><b>[http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/onetimepad.htm One-Time Pad]</i></b>, <i><b>One-time tape</i></b> . In the 70s and 80's, small cryptologic communications terminals such as the XMP-500 and XMP-800 from Datotek. | |
| + | ( See brochure page ) https://wikispooks.com/w/images/4/4b/Datotek-prod.pdf | ||
| + | For U.S. Government agents, the TRW KL-43F, https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:KL-43C-pic.jpg KL-43C, and KL-43A was used on occasion. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Legal status== | ==Legal status== | ||
| − | The [[deep state]] appears to be trying to use the "[[war on terror]]" as an excuse to outlaw encryption. This | + | The [[deep state]] appears to be trying to use the "[[war on terror]]" as an excuse to outlaw encryption by associating it with "[[terrorism]]". This topic is regularly revisited and stepwise after acts of "terrorism".<ref name=howtogeek>https://www.howtogeek.com/234642/what-is-encryption-and-why-are-people-afraid-of-it/</ref> It is proceeding at different rates in different countries. |
| + | |||
===Australia=== | ===Australia=== | ||
Under the 2015 Defence Trade Controls Act, which came into force in 2016, it may be illegal to learn about encryption in Australia.<ref>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/12/in-australia-even-learning-about-encryption-will-be-illegal-soon/</ref> | Under the 2015 Defence Trade Controls Act, which came into force in 2016, it may be illegal to learn about encryption in Australia.<ref>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/12/in-australia-even-learning-about-encryption-will-be-illegal-soon/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Europe=== | ||
| + | In August 2016, [[Germany]]'s [[Thomas de Maizière]] and [[France]]'s interior minister [[Bernard Cazeneuve]] called for the [[European Commission]] to change the law to afford security agencies the ability to access encrypted data.<ref>https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/24/encryption-under-fire-in-europe-as-france-and-germany-call-for-decrypt-law/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Germany==== | ||
| + | In 2017 [[Thomas de Maizière]], [[Germany's Interior Minister]] was lobbying to make encryption illegal unless authorities were provided with a [[backdoor]] - citing the difficulty law enforcement agents have had in past months investigating "[[terrorist]]" attacks and other crimes.<ref>https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-preparing-law-for-backdoors-in-any-type-of-modern-device/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
===USA=== | ===USA=== | ||
| − | In April 2016, a draft of a law called the [[Compliance with Court Orders Act]] were leaked, which suggested broad plans to make encryption illegal. The [[Business Software Alliance]] came out against the Burr-Feinstein bill, saying it "strongly urges" the [[US Congress]] to think again.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/14/burr_feinstein_bill_prompts_protests/</ref> | + | "By the late [[1970s]], individuals within the [[U.S. government]] were already discussing how to solve the “problem” of the growing individual and commercial use of strong encryption."<ref name=dtrh>Doomed To Repeat History? Lessons From The Cryptowars Of The 1990s</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | Until 1996, cryptographic software was classified as munitions in the US, with strict limits to try to prevent effective strong encryption from being exported. If they sold encryption abroad, US software companies often exported versions with shorter keys that would succumb to brute force search. The US government faught a losing battle with commercial groups to try to monopolize use of strong encryption. In September 1999, the White House announced "a sweeping policy change that removed virtually all restrictions on the export of retail encryption products, regardless of key length. As journalist Steven Levy put it succinctly: “It was official: public crypto was our friend.”"<ref name=dtrh/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In April 2016, a draft of a law called the [[Compliance with Court Orders Act]] were leaked, which suggested broad plans to make encryption illegal. The [[Business Software Alliance]] came out against the Burr-Feinstein bill, saying it "strongly urges" the [[US Congress]] to think again.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/14/burr_feinstein_bill_prompts_protests/</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Total ban== | ||
| + | Most modern websites use the {{t|https}} protocol, which makes an encrypted connection. Without such a possibility, many activities, such as for internet [[banking]] would be ill advised. There, a total ban on encryption has serious consequences for interent commerce. Nevertheless, some countries, such as [[Turkmenistan]] have attempted it.{{cn}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Current concerns== | ||
| + | The good professionals know, that encryption must be in the hands of end-users; including "operators" and "actors" in the intelligence definition.{{cn}} Many people believe that no sovereign government, police agency, criminal or terrorist group needs to know their plans ''immediately''; and that when proper encryption is employed, clear data may be discovered only after 2 weeks to 10 years of continuous cryptanalytic processing. Some{{who}} suggest key sizes of 48 characters ( 384 bits) to 64 characters ( 512 bits) for a single message. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Vocabulary== | ||
| + | CODING has several meanings: 1) To program, "to code"; 2) To convert and change data from one form into another. | ||
| + | See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codebook codebook] . regarding CODE BOOKs. | ||
| + | In the context of what is known as <i>secure voice</i> analog speech is changed, converted into | ||
| + | a digital stream or digital buffer ie: "Code Excited Linear Predictive coding, CELP" . This plain voice, is then encrypted by | ||
| + | boolean operations; see XOR. Secure voice systems like the STU-III, STE, vIPer and Hannibal are quite complex. | ||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
| + | ==Tools== | ||
| + | TrueCrypt; OpenPGP (GnuPG project); Tor and Tails, Luks and Encryption Wizard, among others. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | + | * http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/otfp_otlp.html | |
| + | * CLARK, Robert M; <i>Intelligence Collection</i>; (c)2014 CQ Press; pp56--58. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 27 August 2019
 Encryption  (technology)   | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Interest of | • Laura Halminen • Bruce Schneier |
| A process of obscuring information so that it can only be read by a selected number of recipients. | |
Encryption is the process of changing data from an understandable form into a scrambled form. The inverse process, of restoring the original data from the encrypted forms referred to as decryption (or deciphering).
Contents
Official narrative
The commercially-controlled media regularly have stories suggesting that a battle is ongoing between intelligence agencies and the technology companies, about the use of encryption, with the former seeking the ability to decrypt any message, and the latter attempting to protect their users' data from being read. This may well be mere smoke and mirrors to obscure the reality that a large proportion of all large companies' encryption products are cracked, whether by design or by faulty programming.[1]
Theory
Encryption has 3 to 6 parts: "M" a Message; "K" a Key to encrypt a message, and "C" the result resulting Ciphertext or Ciphered data. Part 4,5, and 6 may be additional keys that interact with other keys. These may be public keys and private keys, as used in either an RSA method or DH-ElGamal method. Other systems of key exchange, sharing keys in a secure manner, exist.
Keys
By analogy with doors, a "key" is needed to provide access to encrypted data. A "hardcoded" key is one that cannot be changed, e.g. with a software update. This can lead to a security breach if software creators lose control of their keys. Manufacturers continue to produce hardware wit this vulnerability.[2]
History
Digital Encryption dates to 1919 at AT&T Federal Labs in the financial district of New York City. A pioneer in this work was Gilbert Vernam.
Classic systems involved pencil and paper methods
One group of systems used letter tables and rules to change a text letter into a ciphered letter. Another method used a known rule to convert letters to numbers, and then performing an addition function with a key, to produce a ciphered text. Yet another example of an encryption method was to use a dictionary as a codebook, assigning words to the combination of page number, column, and entry of that column. See codebook; dictionary code. An illustrated example is generally known as the One Time Key method; versions being the One-Time Pad, One-time tape . In the 70s and 80's, small cryptologic communications terminals such as the XMP-500 and XMP-800 from Datotek. ( See brochure page ) https://wikispooks.com/w/images/4/4b/Datotek-prod.pdf For U.S. Government agents, the TRW KL-43F, https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:KL-43C-pic.jpg KL-43C, and KL-43A was used on occasion.
Legal status
The deep state appears to be trying to use the "war on terror" as an excuse to outlaw encryption by associating it with "terrorism". This topic is regularly revisited and stepwise after acts of "terrorism".[3] It is proceeding at different rates in different countries.
Australia
Under the 2015 Defence Trade Controls Act, which came into force in 2016, it may be illegal to learn about encryption in Australia.[4]
Europe
In August 2016, Germany's Thomas de Maizière and France's interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve called for the European Commission to change the law to afford security agencies the ability to access encrypted data.[5]
Germany
In 2017 Thomas de Maizière, Germany's Interior Minister was lobbying to make encryption illegal unless authorities were provided with a backdoor - citing the difficulty law enforcement agents have had in past months investigating "terrorist" attacks and other crimes.[6]
USA
"By the late 1970s, individuals within the U.S. government were already discussing how to solve the “problem” of the growing individual and commercial use of strong encryption."[7]
Until 1996, cryptographic software was classified as munitions in the US, with strict limits to try to prevent effective strong encryption from being exported. If they sold encryption abroad, US software companies often exported versions with shorter keys that would succumb to brute force search. The US government faught a losing battle with commercial groups to try to monopolize use of strong encryption. In September 1999, the White House announced "a sweeping policy change that removed virtually all restrictions on the export of retail encryption products, regardless of key length. As journalist Steven Levy put it succinctly: “It was official: public crypto was our friend.”"[7]
In April 2016, a draft of a law called the Compliance with Court Orders Act were leaked, which suggested broad plans to make encryption illegal. The Business Software Alliance came out against the Burr-Feinstein bill, saying it "strongly urges" the US Congress to think again.[8]
Total ban
Most modern websites use the https protocol, which makes an encrypted connection. Without such a possibility, many activities, such as for internet banking would be ill advised. There, a total ban on encryption has serious consequences for interent commerce. Nevertheless, some countries, such as Turkmenistan have attempted it.[citation needed]
Current concerns
The good professionals know, that encryption must be in the hands of end-users; including "operators" and "actors" in the intelligence definition.[citation needed] Many people believe that no sovereign government, police agency, criminal or terrorist group needs to know their plans immediately; and that when proper encryption is employed, clear data may be discovered only after 2 weeks to 10 years of continuous cryptanalytic processing. Some[Who?] suggest key sizes of 48 characters ( 384 bits) to 64 characters ( 512 bits) for a single message.
Vocabulary
CODING has several meanings: 1) To program, "to code"; 2) To convert and change data from one form into another. See also codebook . regarding CODE BOOKs. In the context of what is known as secure voice analog speech is changed, converted into a digital stream or digital buffer ie: "Code Excited Linear Predictive coding, CELP" . This plain voice, is then encrypted by boolean operations; see XOR. Secure voice systems like the STU-III, STE, vIPer and Hannibal are quite complex.
An example
| Page name | Description |
|---|---|
| TrueCrypt | Widely praised disk encryption software, abruptly discontinued in 2015. Version 7.1a (not 7.2) is the latest fully functional version. |
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roger Dingledine | “The United States government can’t simply run an anonymity system for everybody and then use it themselves only. Because then every time a connection came from it people would say, “Oh, it’s another CIA agent.” If those are the only people using the network.”” | Roger Dingledine | 2004 |
| Rod Rosenstein | “Responsible encryption is achievable. Responsible encryption can involve effective, secure encryption that allows access only with judicial authorization. Such encryption already exists.” | Rod Rosenstein | 10 October 2017 |
| Malcolm Turnbull | “The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” | Malcolm Turnbull | 14 July 2017 |
| Christopher Wray | <nowiki>“To put it mildly, this [[[encryption]]] is a huge, huge problem. It impacts investigations across the board — narcotics, human trafficking, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, gangs, organized crime, child exploitation.”</nowiki> | Christopher Wray | 2017 |
An official example
| Name |
|---|
| Signal Messenger |
Tools
TrueCrypt; OpenPGP (GnuPG project); Tor and Tails, Luks and Encryption Wizard, among others.
References
- ↑ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbxxxd/unlock-iphone-ios11-graykey-grayshift-police
- ↑ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/26/the_latest_killerapp_for_windows_10_lenovos_bugridden_fingerprint_software/
- ↑ https://www.howtogeek.com/234642/what-is-encryption-and-why-are-people-afraid-of-it/
- ↑ http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/12/in-australia-even-learning-about-encryption-will-be-illegal-soon/
- ↑ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/24/encryption-under-fire-in-europe-as-france-and-germany-call-for-decrypt-law/
- ↑ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/germany-preparing-law-for-backdoors-in-any-type-of-modern-device/
- ↑ a b Doomed To Repeat History? Lessons From The Cryptowars Of The 1990s
- ↑ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/14/burr_feinstein_bill_prompts_protests/
- http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/otfp_otlp.html
- CLARK, Robert M; Intelligence Collection; (c)2014 CQ Press; pp56--58.
