From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: library/binding for sftp? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:23 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <85li4gmhrt.fsf@stephe-leake.org><2wgl8bcmdsu0$.1rs1604fzwufv.dlg@40tude.net><85vc3jfias.fsf@stephe-leake.org><1gwg87tgm2bo7$.ae7440ka6kmc.dlg@40tude.net><85bo59g6h7.fsf@stephe-leake.org><5987935c-dbce-4602-b0e6-2bb85513588b@googlegroups.com><9oo34px7j5ko$.1j7bcnxwzgcxe.dlg@40tude.net><20130808111404.5fc6ce14@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se><1nfcrgjw8vkrb.1aukq12ys882l$.dlg@40tude.net><20130808133709.09dfef98@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> <20130809104904.6ca91de2@hactar.xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1376954125 23814 69.95.181.76 (19 Aug 2013 23:15:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 23:15:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Original-Bytes: 6315 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183076 Date: 2013-08-19T18:15:23-05:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:alpine.DEB.2.10.1308191900320.24091@debian... On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, Randy Brukardt wrote: >>>>>> Firstly, there is no protection against targeted attack. Secondly, >>>>>> regarding spies, they aren't any good in programming. Obscuring is >>>>>> the best method against unfocused surveillance which works only >>>>>> with known protocols. >>>>> >>>>> Four false statements in a row. >>>> >>>> There are only three here, >>> >>> Three sentences, but I see two statements in the third sentence. >> >> There is only one in the third sentence that I see. "best method". The >> rest >> is a definition. > >Randy, I see two statements in the third sentence, and no definition: > >1. obscuring is the best method against unfocused surveillance >2. unfocused surveillance works only with known protocols. > >I question the first statement. Right. >The second one is dangerously wrong, and there are plenty of >counterexamples. I view it as a definition. You're forgetting that packet inspection and the like (the basis of "unfocused surveillance") depend completely on "known protocols", since TCP/IP and the various routing protocols are surely "known protocols". It's impossible to send anything over the Internet (public or local) without using many known protocols. If you truly are using only "unknown protocols", then you're by definition using a private wired connection, and clearly only a determined attacker would have access to that. And there is no defense against such attackers; the most you can do is annoy them enough that hopefully they'll look for an easier target. >One common error frequently found in homegrown protocols is encrypting >some stuff while leaving other sensitive information in the clear. E.g., >older versions of WinZip did support the encryption of files, while >including plain filenames in the archives. (I am not sure about recent >versions of WinZip.) Any protocol based on sending "encrypted" archives >would trivially leave the filenames open even for unfocused surveillance >operations -- if that was fishing for filenames. This is where I always lose it. Filenames being sensitive information? Only if the programmers in question are complete idiots. (And I realize there are plenty of them out there.) I can't imagine any value being associated with knowing that there is a file name "J2Typ_De.Ads" that makes up part of the Janus/Ada compiler. Sure, perhaps a dedicated attacker might find out some program that you're using in that way, but there are thousands of ways for such attackers to get in. Plugging one has no effect whatsoever. Besides, anyone who puts anything sensitive in the cloud for long-term storage is going to be a victim sooner or later. ("Sensitive" here meaning with long-lived value, like credit card numbers.) Sooner or later, any of these things will be broken (and that's assuming that the NSA doesn't already require backdoors, which seems likely). It's now known that the NSA tracks pretty much every internet connection. Sending anything over the Internet is guarenteed to leave a trace, so if that is "sensitive information" to you, simply don't do it. And if you have *truly* sensitive information, don't put it on the Internet (ever!), and try not to put it on a computer, either. I've been talking about information that you'd rather not have people see (which for me, is almost anything I do) but doesn't need NSA-grade protection. I don't care if the NSA sees that I'm corresponding with you here, but if I wanted to keep them (and everyone else) from simple content scans, I'd use a custom protocol. (I think it's likely that they can read SSH transactions, but I don't think they can do that in real-time.) If you need public connections, then surely use SSH. But you can surely do better. In truth, though, it's probably all pointless. The government (anybodies government) will soon ban computers that they can't control. It seems likely that Windows 8 in particular is full of backdoors (indeed, it seems to have a frontdoor in terms of the "Microsoft account" which clearly allows Microsoft and thus the NSA to track logons and location for almost every new Windows computer). I would expect that will be done by essentially preventing anyone that has an unapproved computer from connecting in any way to the Internet. And then the enslavement of the masses will be complete. ("1984" was far too kind as to our future.) Randy.