NODE 6fb1dae4Black Eye for NSA, NIST, and Denning
an5877@anon.penet.fi (deadbeat)Fri, 3 Jun 94 15:18:54 PDT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On the one hand, I applaud Dr. Blaze for the discoveries based on his
black-box analysis of the NSA product. How fortunate to have him
working in a laboratory seeded with this gear.
On the other hand, I am amused at the "big deal" being made about such
a minor result. This "protocol failure" exposes the NSA product to no
new threats. If one's objective is to use SKIPJACK but to defeat key
escrow, pre-encryption is easier, conceptually simpler, and may be more
secure, depending on what is actually inside the SKIPJACK code.
I won't ask why the big deal is being made about all of this -- the
agenda surrounding Clipper and friends is clearly a political one, not
a technical one, so it is no surprise to hear even the technical voices,
i.e., this list, trumpeting Blaze's paper as though it were a dagger in
the heart of SKIPJACK. But let's all acknowledge the technical weight
and importance of Blaze's result for what it is: minuscule.
DEADBEAT <na5877@anon.penet.fi>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.4
iQBFAgUBLe9KWPFZTpBW/B35AQEbdwGAmBpl2lBCtLkPN4QBruEEKsstCWWpIEGm
KMBK2YlxL5V9fnHRDn3RlRJT6Ji++7yd
=gIHN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
NODE 9bddf704Re: Black Eye for NSA, NIST, and Denning
Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>Fri, 3 Jun 94 15:28:57 PDT
deadbeat wrote:
| On the one hand, I applaud Dr. Blaze for the discoveries based on his
| black-box analysis of the NSA product. How fortunate to have him
| working in a laboratory seeded with this gear.
|
| On the other hand, I am amused at the "big deal" being made about such
| a minor result. This "protocol failure" exposes the NSA product to no
| new threats. If one's objective is to use SKIPJACK but to defeat key
| escrow, pre-encryption is easier, conceptually simpler, and may be more
| secure, depending on what is actually inside the SKIPJACK code.
Actually, Blaze's work does nullify one important aspect of
Clipper that pre-encryption does not address, and that is traffic
analasis.
Adam
--
Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu
Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.
NODE f7bbc741Re: Black Eye for NSA, NIST, and Denning
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>Fri, 3 Jun 94 15:41:46 PDT
> But let's all acknowledge the technical weight
> and importance of Blaze's result for what it is: minuscule.
I'd love to see Mr. Deadbeat try to produce a similar result some
time. However, even beyond the raw intellectual achievement, Matt's
result is Pretty Good technically. He showed a major flaw in the
proposed escrowed encryption protocol that renders it pretty much
valueless. Deadbeat misses the boat when he notes you can pre-encrypt
-- with Matt's technique, I can actually interoperate with someone who
isn't attempting to avoid escrow. I'd like to see Deadbeat explain how
to manage that via any other method than the one proposed.
Perry