Re: LEAF forgery

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I wrote about a possible trapdoor in Skipjack to which Perry replied:

>Your belief is without evidence. It is a supposition. I'd say the NSA 
>has a lot to lose by putting holes in Skipjack.

How true, yet the NSA also had a lot to lose by putting out a flawed 
backdoor in Skipjack which essentially negates much of this features (LEAF)
value. They did so none the less. In addition, I remember the comments 
of Stuart Baker; the audacity was typical of an organization which would
put in just such a hole and smugly disbelieve that anyone would find out.
In addition, it is possible that the agency is not alarmed about their LEAF
problems because they don't need to use it. Of course, even if the whole
algorithm was compromised I don't think they would show alarm outwardly. The 
possibilty is still there.

Since one does not know the Skipjack design, a belief that it does not 
contain a trapdoor is without evidence and also a supposition. My contention
is that the NSA is cocky enough to disregard the consequences of putting
holes in Skipjack. 

>None the less, I wouldn't use Skipjack, because I don't trust things I
>don't know the design of.

Me neither, and randomly generating new LEAF fields would not give me 
comfort as to the security of my transmissions. Which is the main point
here in my mind.

Scott G. Morham            !The First,
VACCINIA@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu!          Second  
PGP Public Keys by Request !                and Third Levels 
                           !      of Information Storage and Retrieval
                           !DNA,
                           !    Biological Neural Nets,
                           !                           Cyberspace


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLe92xz2paOMjHHAhAQHaUwP/T+Di/N7ej8pfW7jKJJHmV8CTfJaYkYgt
ejB2M+QTs23i+6AdT6yiSfs+cGXz19F/eHiNtvemJyYujnyXP8EjxeqkhCIjtu+/
ZkF9dBWSC6V1Xj7MycPZbG8lgv7EY57nnVDU7smv42xbRx9Co9qYF9zRdhe0WRZc
Hdzm4YP+8Bw=
=T1Tz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

VACCINIA@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu says:
> >Your belief is without evidence. It is a supposition. I'd say the NSA 
> >has a lot to lose by putting holes in Skipjack.
> 
> How true, yet the NSA also had a lot to lose by putting out a flawed 
> backdoor in Skipjack which essentially negates much of this features (LEAF)
> value. They did so none the less.

All the evidence is that it was an accident. You contend, without
evidence or even a rational reason, that they did it intentionally.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I operate on evidence and the
assumption that people behave in their self interest. NSA had nothing
to gain by sabotaging their own efforts in this manner. Even if they
had another back door it is worth their while to make the public back
door as good as possible. The notion that they would have done it
badly intentionally for no reason when doing it well would be easy is
at the very least without evidence or even rational suspicion.

What would they possibly have to gain via such an act?

> In addition, it is possible that the agency is not alarmed about their LEAF
> problems because they don't need to use it.

They may be able redesign the system before widespread deployment.
Its also in their interest to play mistakes down. How do YOU know they
aren't really embarassed?

Perry