Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Aftermath (Score 4, Informative) 546

You want a citation? Here's a citation:

In 2013, Reuters reported that documents released by Edward Snowden indicated that the NSA had paid RSA Security $10 million to make Dual_EC_DRBG the default in their encryption software, and raised further concerns that the algorithm might contain a backdoor for the NSA.

Comment Re:More important 3rd question ... (Score 1) 546

The blame for that lies with the NSA -- they intertwined their domestic and foreign operations like a pair of perverted Siamese twin octopi in order to get around the laws that (somewhat) limited their ability to perform domestic snooping (the NSA spies on the British subjects; GHCQ spies on the American citizens; the two trade files).

Comment Re:Blind sight. (Score 1) 108

They are just making this hubub to throw people off. They have key loggers and ways to view your screens that can not be detected with normal means. Using some other form of network that is hard to spot. Don your tin foil hats cause they can read brain waves too. Who really knows? With all the things I have read on USB and viruses being able to bridge air gaps; I don't know, it could very well be as advanced as I am making fun of. Mosquito sized drones and all.

That's true, and it shows that the ONOZ OMG TERRAISTS!!1! rhetoric is a pack of lies. You've listed (setting aside the facetious "tin foil hats" part) some techniques available to the government for monitoring legitimate targets of suspicion. However, it wants to snoop on everybody, and those techniques don't scale large enough to make that possible.

Comment Re:Back doors are weak for everyone (Score 2) 108

The point here is that the backdoor could be a second key instead of a way to break your key. Assuming that second key is also resistant to breaking then you haven't introduced any vulnerabilities to an outsider--assuming that the second key is kept secure. And that, it must be admitted, is a pretty damn big if.

That makes it an exercise in futility, easily defeated by hacking the system to substitute some other second key (which could be random gibberish, since it's not actually used, just put in to defeat the backdoor).

Comment I Thought The Supreme Court Ruled On This (Score 1) 183

Just last week they decided that "threatening" remarks on the Internet weren't no thing in the absence of clear evidence of intent to do more than blow off steam. Oh. Wait. That was a threat against some nobody, a precedent that clearly does not apply if the aggrieved party is instead a high and mighty judge. [_EMILY_LATELLA_] Never mind. [_/EMILY_LATELLA_]

Comment Re: Disgusting. (Score 1) 686

Is the world safer?

Yes. The revelations, and public reactions to them (the real public reaction as expressed in the marketplace, not whatever jaw-flapping occurs in response to some inane telemarkepollster call) have led to security improvements. The fact that it has also led to the entertaining spectacle of useless bureaucrats running around pissing and moaning and whining and generally making fools of themselves in public is just a bonus.

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?