DOCSLIB.ORG

Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: a Canadian Field Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: a Canadian Field Guide SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE JOINT RESEARCH PUBLICATION, MAY 2018 BY THE CITIZEN LAB AND THE CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY & PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC LEX GILL TAMIR ISRAEL CHRISTOPHER PARSONS SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE This page has intentionally been lef blank. SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE COPYRIGHT © 2018 Citizen Lab and the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, “Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: A Canadian Field Guide,” by Lex Gill, Tamir Israel, and Christopher Parsons Licensed under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 (Attribution-ShareAlike Licence) Electronic version first published by Citizen Lab and the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic in 2018. This work can be accessed through https://citizenlab.ca and https://cippic.ca. Citizen Lab and the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) are collaborative research partners. Together, the two groups engage in research that investigates the intersection of digital technologies, law, and human rights. This report is a joint research publication. Document Version: 1.1 (23 May 2018 — minor revisions) The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license under which this report is licensed lets you freely copy, distribute, remix, transform, and build on it, as long as you: • give appropriate credit; • indicate whether you made changes; and • use and link to the same CC BY-SA 4.0 licence. However, any rights in excerpts reproduced in this report remain with their respective authors; and any rights in brand and product names and associated logos remain with their respective owners. Uses of these that are protected by copyright or trademark rights require the rightsholder’s prior written agreement. SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE CITIZEN LAB, MUNK SCHOOL OF GLOBAL AFFAIRS The Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, focusing on research, development, and high-level strategic policy and legal engagement at the intersection of information and communication technologies, human rights, and global security. Citizen Lab uses a “mixed methods” approach to research combining practices from political science, law, computer science, and area studies. Its research includes investigating digital espionage against civil society, documenting Internet filtering and other technologies and practices that impact freedom of expression online, analyzing privacy, security, and information controls of popular applications, and examining transparency and accountability mechanisms relevant to the relationship between corporations and state agencies regarding personal data and other surveillance activities. CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY & PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) is a legal clinic based at the Centre for Law, Technology & Society (CLTS) at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. Its core mandate is to ensure that the public interest is accounted for in decision-making on issues that arise at the intersection of law and technology. It has the additional mandate of providing legal assistance to under-represented organizations and individuals on law and technology issues, as well as a teaching mandate focused on providing law students practical training in a law and technology setting. CIPPIC adopts a multi-lateral approach to advancing its mandate, which involves placing objective and comprehensive research and argumentation before key political, regulatory and legal decision makers. It seeks to ensure a holistic approach to its analysis, which integrates the socio-political, technical and legal dimensions of a particular policy problem. This regularly includes providing expert testimony before parliamentary committees, participating in quasi-judicial regulatory proceedings, strategic intervention at all levels of court and involvement in domestic and international Internet governance fora. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Lex Gill is a Citizen Lab Research Fellow. She has also served as the National Security Program Advocate to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as a CIPPIC Google Policy Fellow and as a researcher to the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. She holds a B.C.L./LL.B. from McGill University’s Faculty of Law. Tamir Israel is Staff Lawyer at the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He leads CIPPIC’s privacy, net neutrality, electronic surveillance and telecommunications regulation activities and conducts research and advocacy on a range of other digital rights-related topics. Christopher Parsons is currently a Research Associate at the Citizen Lab, in the Munk School of Global Affairs with the University of Toronto as well as the Managing Director of the Telecom Transparency Project at the Citizen Lab. He received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Guelph, and his Ph.D from the University of Victoria. SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to extend their deepest gratitude to a number of individuals who have provided support and feedback in the production of this report, including (in alphabetical order) Bram Abramson, Nate Cardozo, Masashi Crete-Nishihata, Ron Deibert, Mickael E.B., Andrew Hilts, Jeffrey Knockel, Adam Molnar, Christopher Prince, Tina Salameh, Amie Stepanovich, and Mari Jing Zhou. Any errors remain the fault of the authors alone. We are also grateful to the many individuals and organizations who gave us the opportunity to share early versions of this work, including Lisa Austin at the Faculty of Law (University of Toronto); Vanessa Rhinesmith and David Eaves at digital HKS (Harvard Kennedy School); Ian Goldberg and Erinn Atwater at the Cryptography, Security, and Privacy (CrySP) Research Group (University of Waterloo); Florian Martin-Bariteau at the Centre for Law, Technology and Society (University of Ottawa); and the Citizen Lab Summer Institute (Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto). Finally, the authors would like to offer our sincere thanks to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation, whose generous funding made this report possible. CORRECTIONS AND QUESTIONS Please send all questions and corrections to the authors directly, at: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SUGGESTED CITATION Lex Gill, Tamir Israel, and Christopher Parsons (May 2018), “Shining a Light on the Encryption Debate: A Canadian Field Guide,” Citizen Lab and the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE TABLE OF ACRONYMS AANDC Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada ACLU American Civil Liberties Union (US) AES Advanced Encryption Standard BCCLA British Columbia Civil Liberties Association CACP Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police CALEA Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (US) CBSA Canada Border Services Agency CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CIA Central Intelligence Agency (US) CIPPIC Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic CoE Council of Europe CSE(C) Communications Security Establishment (Canada) CSIS Canadian Security Intelligence Service DES Data Encryption Standard ECL Export Control List EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation (US) ENISA European Network and Information Security Agency (EU) FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation (US) FELEG Five Eyes Law Enforcement Group FFU Free File Upload FINRA Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (US) FISC Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (US) FOI Freedom of Information G8 Group of Eight G20 Group of Twenty GCHQ Government Communications Headquarters (UK) GPG GNU Privacy Guard GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GSN General Sofware Note (Wassenaar Arrangement) HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTPS Hypertext Transfer Protocol (Secure) IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IMSI International Mobile Subscriber Identifier IP Internet Protocol SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE IPA Investigatory Powers Act (UK) ISP Internet Service Provider ISO International Organization for Standardization LEAF Law Enforcement Access Field (Clipper Chip) MI5 Military Intelligence, Section 5 (UK) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology (US) NSA National Security Agency (US) OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OSINT Open Source Intelligence OTR Off-the-Record PGP Pretty Good Privacy RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police RIM Research in Motion RSA Rivest–Shamir–Adleman (Cryptosystem or Company) SGES Solicitor General’s Enforcement Standards SIM Subscriber Identity Module SSL Secure Sockets Layer TSL Transport Layer Security TSP Telecommunications Service Provider UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation URL Uniform Resource Locator VPN Virtual Private Network W3C World Wide Web Consortium SHINING A LIGHT ON THE ENCRYPTION DEBATE: A CANADIAN FIELD GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary and Introduction i Part 1: Cryptography 101: What is Encryption?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Security Analysis of Voatz, the First Internet Voting Application Used in U.S
    The Ballot is Busted Before the Blockchain: A Security Analysis of Voatz, the First Internet Voting Application Used in U.S. Federal Elections∗ Michael A. Specter James Koppel Daniel Weitzner MIT† MIT‡ MIT§ Abstract The company has recently closed a $7-million series A [22], and is on track to be used in the 2020 Primaries. In the 2018 midterm elections, West Virginia became the In this paper, we present the first public security review of first state in the U.S. to allow select voters to cast their bal- Voatz. We find that Voatz is vulnerable to a number of attacks lot on a mobile phone via a proprietary app called “Voatz.” that could violate election integrity (summary in Table1). For Although there is no public formal description of Voatz’s se- example, we find that an attacker with root access to a voter’s curity model, the company claims that election security and device can easily evade the system’s defenses (§5.1.1), learn integrity are maintained through the use of a permissioned the user’s choices (even after the event is over), and alter the blockchain, biometrics, a mixnet, and hardware-backed key user’s vote (§5.1). We further find that their network protocol storage modules on the user’s device. In this work, we present can leak details of the user’s vote (§5.3), and, surprisingly, that the first public security analysis of Voatz, based on a reverse that the system’s use of the blockchain is unlikely to protect engineering of their Android application and the minimal against server-side attacks (§5.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Cryptography
    56 Protecting Information With Cryptography Chapter by Peter Reiher (UCLA) 56.1 Introduction In previous chapters, we’ve discussed clarifying your security goals, determining your security policies, using authentication mechanisms to identify principals, and using access control mechanisms to enforce poli- cies concerning which principals can access which computer resources in which ways. While we identified a number of shortcomings and prob- lems inherent in all of these elements of securing your system, if we re- gard those topics as covered, what’s left for the operating system to worry about, from a security perspective? Why isn’t that everything? There are a number of reasons why we need more. Of particular im- portance: not everything is controlled by the operating system. But per- haps you respond, you told me the operating system is all-powerful! Not really. It has substantial control over a limited domain – the hardware on which it runs, using the interfaces of which it is given control. It has no real control over what happens on other machines, nor what happens if one of its pieces of hardware is accessed via some mechanism outside the operating system’s control. But how can we expect the operating system to protect something when the system does not itself control access to that resource? The an- swer is to prepare the resource for trouble in advance. In essence, we assume that we are going to lose the data, or that an opponent will try to alter it improperly. And we take steps to ensure that such actions don’t cause us problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Can We Trust Cryptographic Software? Cryptographic Flaws in GNU Privacy Guard V1.2.3
    Can We Trust Cryptographic Software? Cryptographic Flaws in GNU Privacy Guard v1.2.3 Phong Q. Nguyen CNRS/Ecole´ normale sup´erieure D´epartement d’informatique 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris Cedex 05, France. [email protected] http://www.di.ens.fr/˜pnguyen Abstract. More and more software use cryptography. But how can one know if what is implemented is good cryptography? For proprietary soft- ware, one cannot say much unless one proceeds to reverse-engineering, and history tends to show that bad cryptography is much more frequent than good cryptography there. Open source software thus sounds like a good solution, but the fact that a source code can be read does not imply that it is actually read, especially by cryptography experts. In this paper, we illustrate this point by examining the case of a basic In- ternet application of cryptography: secure email. We analyze parts of thesourcecodeofthelatestversionofGNUPrivacyGuard(GnuPGor GPG), a free open source alternative to the famous PGP software, com- pliant with the OpenPGP standard, and included in most GNU/Linux distributions such as Debian, MandrakeSoft, Red Hat and SuSE. We ob- serve several cryptographic flaws in GPG v1.2.3. The most serious flaw has been present in GPG for almost four years: we show that as soon as one (GPG-generated) ElGamal signature of an arbitrary message is released, one can recover the signer’s private key in less than a second on a PC. As a consequence, ElGamal signatures and the so-called ElGamal sign+encrypt keys have recently been removed from GPG.
    [Show full text]
  • Katalog Elektronskih Knjiga
    KATALOG ELEKTRONSKIH KNJIGA Br Autor Naziv Godina ISBN Str. Porijeklo izdavanja 1 Peter Kent Pay Per Click Search 2006 0-471-74594-3 130 Kupovina Engine Marketing for Dummies 2 Terry Large Access 1 2007 Internet Freeware 3 Kevin Smith Excel Lassons & Tutorials 2004 Internet Freeware 4 Terry Michael Photografy Tutorials 2006 Internet Freeware Janine Peterson Phil Pivnick 5 Jake Ludington Converting Vinyl LPs 2003 Internet Freeware to CD 6 Allen Wyatt Cleaning Windows XP 2004 0-7645-7311-X Poklon for Dummies 7 Peter Kent Sarch Engine Optimization 2006 0-4717-5441-2 Kupovina for Dummies 8 Terry Large Access 2 2007 Internet Freeware 9 Dirk Dupon How to write, create, 2005 Internet Freeware promote and sell E-books on the Internet 10 Chayden Bates eBook Marketing 2000 Internet Freeware Explained 11 Kevin Sinclair How To Choose A 1999 Internet Freeware Homebased Bussines 12 Bob McElwain 101 Newbie-Frendly Tips 2001 Internet Freeware 13 Windows Basics 2004 Poklon 14 Michael Abrash Zen of Graphic 2005 Poklon Programming, 2. izdanje 15 13 Hot Internet 2000 Internet Freeware Moneymaking Methods 16 K. Williams The Complete HTML 1998 Poklon Teacher 17 C. Darwin On the Origin of Species Internet Freeware 2/175 Br Autor Naziv Godina ISBN Str. Porijeklo izdavanja 18 C. Darwin The Variation of Animals Internet Freeware 19 Bruce Eckel Thinking in C++, Vol 1 2000 Internet Freeware 20 Bruce Eckel Thinking in C++, Vol 2 2000 Internet Freeware 21 James Parton Captains of Industry 1890 399 Internet Freeware 22 Bruno R. Preiss Data Structures and 1998 Internet
    [Show full text]
  • NSA's Efforts to Secure Private-Sector Telecommunications Infrastructure
    Under the Radar: NSA’s Efforts to Secure Private-Sector Telecommunications Infrastructure Susan Landau* INTRODUCTION When Google discovered that intruders were accessing certain Gmail ac- counts and stealing intellectual property,1 the company turned to the National Security Agency (NSA) for help in securing its systems. For a company that had faced accusations of violating user privacy, to ask for help from the agency that had been wiretapping Americans without warrants appeared decidedly odd, and Google came under a great deal of criticism. Google had approached a number of federal agencies for help on its problem; press reports focused on the company’s approach to the NSA. Google’s was the sensible approach. Not only was NSA the sole government agency with the necessary expertise to aid the company after its systems had been exploited, it was also the right agency to be doing so. That seems especially ironic in light of the recent revelations by Edward Snowden over the extent of NSA surveillance, including, apparently, Google inter-data-center communications.2 The NSA has always had two functions: the well-known one of signals intelligence, known in the trade as SIGINT, and the lesser known one of communications security or COMSEC. The former became the subject of novels, histories of the agency, and legend. The latter has garnered much less attention. One example of the myriad one could pick is David Kahn’s seminal book on cryptography, The Codebreakers: The Comprehensive History of Secret Communication from Ancient Times to the Internet.3 It devotes fifty pages to NSA and SIGINT and only ten pages to NSA and COMSEC.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of End-To-End Encryption and the Death of PGP
    25/05/2020 A history of end-to-end encryption and the death of PGP Hey! I'm David, a security engineer at the Blockchain team of Facebook (https://facebook.com/), previously a security consultant for the Cryptography Services of NCC Group (https://www.nccgroup.com). I'm also the author of the Real World Cryptography book (https://www.manning.com/books/real-world- cryptography?a_aid=Realworldcrypto&a_bid=ad500e09). This is my blog about cryptography and security and other related topics that I Ûnd interesting. A history of end-to-end encryption and If you don't know where to start, you might want to check these popular the death of PGP articles: posted January 2020 - How did length extension attacks made it 1981 - RFC 788 - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol into SHA-2? (/article/417/how-did-length- extension-attacks-made-it-into-sha-2/) (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc788) (SMTP) is published, - Speed and Cryptography the standard for email is born. (/article/468/speed-and-cryptography/) - What is the BLS signature scheme? (/article/472/what-is-the-bls-signature- This is were everything starts, we now have an open peer-to-peer scheme/) protocol that everyone on the internet can use to communicate. - Zero'ing memory, compiler optimizations and memset_s (/article/419/zeroing-memory- compiler-optimizations-and-memset_s/) 1991 - The 9 Lives of Bleichenbacher's CAT: New Cache ATtacks on TLS Implementations The US government introduces the 1991 Senate Bill 266, (/article/461/the-9-lives-of-bleichenbachers- which attempts to allow "the Government to obtain the cat-new-cache-attacks-on-tls- plain text contents of voice, data, and other implementations/) - How to Backdoor Di¸e-Hellman: quick communications when appropriately authorized by law" explanation (/article/360/how-to-backdoor- from "providers of electronic communications services di¸e-hellman-quick-explanation/) and manufacturers of electronic communications - Tamarin Prover Introduction (/article/404/tamarin-prover-introduction/) service equipment".
    [Show full text]
  • Mac OS X Server Administrator's Guide
    034-9285.S4AdminPDF 6/27/02 2:07 PM Page 1 Mac OS X Server Administrator’s Guide K Apple Computer, Inc. © 2002 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved. Under the copyright laws, this publication may not be copied, in whole or in part, without the written consent of Apple. The Apple logo is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Use of the “keyboard” Apple logo (Option-Shift-K) for commercial purposes without the prior written consent of Apple may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. Apple, the Apple logo, AppleScript, AppleShare, AppleTalk, ColorSync, FireWire, Keychain, Mac, Macintosh, Power Macintosh, QuickTime, Sherlock, and WebObjects are trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. AirPort, Extensions Manager, Finder, iMac, and Power Mac are trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Adobe and PostScript are trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Java and all Java-based trademarks and logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. Netscape Navigator is a trademark of Netscape Communications Corporation. RealAudio is a trademark of Progressive Networks, Inc. © 1995–2001 The Apache Group. All rights reserved. UNIX is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries, licensed exclusively through X/Open Company, Ltd. 062-9285/7-26-02 LL9285.Book Page 3 Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:59 PM Contents Preface How to Use This Guide 39 What’s Included
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of Erik Wilde
    dretbiblio dretbiblio Erik Wilde's Bibliography References [1] AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, San Francisco, California, December 1968. [2] Seventeenth IEEE Conference on Computer Communication Networks, Washington, D.C., 1978. [3] ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, March 1982. ACM Press. [4] First Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1986. [5] 1987 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, November 1987. ACM Press. [6] 18th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, Tokyo, Japan, 1988. IEEE Computer Society Press. [7] Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, 1988. ACM Press. [8] Conference on Office Information Systems, Palo Alto, California, March 1988. [9] 1989 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 1989. ACM Press. [10] UNIX | The Legend Evolves. Summer 1990 UKUUG Conference, Buntingford, UK, 1990. UKUUG. [11] Fourth ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, South Carolina, November 1991. [12] GLOBECOM'91 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [13] IEEE INFOCOM '91 Conference on Computer Communications, Bal Harbour, Florida, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [14] IEEE International Conference on Communications, Denver, Colorado, June 1991. [15] International Workshop on CSCW, Berlin, Germany, April 1991. [16] Third ACM Conference on Hypertext, San Antonio, Texas, December 1991. ACM Press. [17] 11th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, Houston, Texas, 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. [18] 3rd Joint European Networking Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, May 1992. [19] Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext, Milano, Italy, November 1992. ACM Press. [20] GLOBECOM'92 Conference, Orlando, Florida, December 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. http://github.com/dret/biblio (August 29, 2018) 1 dretbiblio [21] IEEE INFOCOM '92 Conference on Computer Communications, Florence, Italy, 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • PCI Assessment Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance
    PCI Assessment Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this report document is for the Prepared for: exclusive use of the client specified above and may contain confidential, privileged and non-disclosable information. If the recipient of this report is not the client or Prospect or Customer addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this report or its contents in any way. Prepared by: Your Company Name Evidence of PCI Policy Compliance PCI ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 1 - Overview 1.1 - Security Officer 1.2 - Overall Risk 2 - PCI DSS Evidence of Compliance 2.1 - Install and maintain firewall to protect cardholder data 2.1.1.1 - Requirements for firewall at each Internet connections and between DMZ and internal network zone 2.1.1.2 - Business justification for use of all services, protocols and ports allowed 2.1.2 - Build firewall and router configurations that restrict connections between untrusted networks and the cardholder data environment 2.1.2.1 - Restrict inbound and outbound to that which is necessary for the cardholder data environment 2.1.2.3 - Do not allow unauthorized outbound traffic from the cardholder data environment to the Internet 2.1.2.4 - Implement stateful inspection (also known as dynamic packet filtering) 2.1.2.5 - Do not allow unauthorized outbound traffic from the cardholder data environment to the Internet 2.2 - Prohibition of vendor-supplied default password for systems and security parameters 2.2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Encrypting Deception: Weaknesses in the Encryption of Solid State Drives
    Self-encrypting deception: weaknesses in the encryption of solid state drives Carlo Meijer Bernard van Gastel Institute for Computing and Information Sciences School of Computer Science Radboud University Nijmegen Open University of the Netherlands [email protected] and Institute for Computing and Information Sciences Radboud University Nijmegen Bernard.vanGastel@{ou.nl,ru.nl} Abstract—We have analyzed the hardware full-disk encryption full-disk encryption. Full-disk encryption software, especially of several solid state drives (SSDs) by reverse engineering their those integrated in modern operating systems, may decide to firmware. These drives were produced by three manufacturers rely solely on hardware encryption in case it detects support between 2014 and 2018, and are both internal models using the SATA and NVMe interfaces (in a M.2 or 2.5" traditional form by the storage device. In case the decision is made to rely on factor) and external models using the USB interface. hardware encryption, typically software encryption is disabled. In theory, the security guarantees offered by hardware encryp- As a primary example, BitLocker, the full-disk encryption tion are similar to or better than software implementations. In software built into Microsoft Windows, switches off software reality, we found that many models using hardware encryption encryption and completely relies on hardware encryption by have critical security weaknesses due to specification, design, and implementation issues. For many models, these security default if the drive advertises support. weaknesses allow for complete recovery of the data without Contribution. This paper evaluates both internal and external knowledge of any secret (such as the password).
    [Show full text]
  • Computer and Information Security Pointer​ to Homework 2
    Computer and Information Security (ECE560, Fall 2020, Duke Univ., Prof. Tyler Bletsch) Pointer to Homework 2 Updated 2020-09-07:​ Clarified SSH key format Question 0: Accessing the Homework (0 points, but necessary) Homework 2 is encrypted with three stages of encryption. You’ll need to use both your Windows VM and a new Kali Linux VM. The stages are: 1. The inner layer is a VeraCrypt encrypted disk image to be opened in Windows that ​ ​ contains a link to Homework 2; I explain how to find the key for this later in this document. You get to the inner layer by decrypting the outer layer. 2. The outer layer is encrypted with AES and is available for each student on the course ​ ​ site; the secret key is randomly generated per each student and is distributed by the Encrypted Thing Giver web app. ​ 3. The Encrypted Thing Giver accepts an RSA public key, encrypts the random secret ​ ​ key using this public key. As owner of the corresponding private key, you’ll be able to decrypt it in order to obtain the AES key for the outer layer. The steps below will walk you through this crypto journey. You will need to show your work later, so keep notes! Make an SSH key pair You will need an SSH key pair. If you already created one, you can use it as-is (provided it is RSA-based, but most are). If you don’t have an SSH key pair, research how to create one with ssh-keygen. You may wish to do this on your local system, as you can set it up to let you SSH into Duke machines without a password (optional -- see Appendix A at the end of this document).
    [Show full text]
  • Gnu Privacy Guard (Gnupg) Mini Howto (Italiano)
    Gnu Privacy Guard (GnuPG) Mini Howto (italiano) Brenno J.S.A.A.F. de Winter (inglese) <[email protected]>, Michael Fischer v. Mollard (tedesco) <[email protected]>, Arjen Baart (olandese) <[email protected]>, Cristian Riga- monti (italiano) <[email protected]> Versione 0.1.4 12 maggio 2003 Questo documento spiega come usare GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG), un sistema di crittografia Open Source e compatibile con OpenPGP. Per mantenere il programma totalmente libero, si `eevitato l’uso di RSA e di altri algoritmi brevettati. Il documento originale `escritto in tedesco da Michael Fischer v. Mollard, questa traduzione italiana, a cura di Cristian Rigamonti, `ebasata sulla traduzione inglese del testo originale. Indice 1 Concetti 2 1.1 Crittografia a chiave pubblica .................................... 2 1.2 Firme digitali ............................................. 2 1.3 Rete di fiducia ............................................ 3 1.4 Limiti alla sicurezza ......................................... 3 2 Installazione 3 2.1 Sorgenti di GnuPG .......................................... 3 2.2 Configurazione ............................................ 4 2.3 Compilazione ............................................. 4 2.4 Installazione .............................................. 5 3 Uso delle chiavi 5 3.1 Creare una chiave ........................................... 5 3.2 Esportare le chiavi .......................................... 6 3.3 Importare le chiavi .......................................... 6 3.4 Revocare una chiave ........................................
    [Show full text]