On Sep 9, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > When we first heard of PRISM it was assumed that the data was being > voluntarily disclosed by Google etc. It now appears that it is plaintext > traffic on the Internet trunks that is being intercepted.
I recall that some of Vint's team at InternetMCI demoed a wire-speed interceptor using an optical splitter tap back before they were sold to Cable & Wireless. In my mind, optical splitter tap == a prism. And this was in the late 90's, so it's gotten better since then. Much better. I suspect that all that is needed is a slight kink in the fiber, and enough signal leaks out that it can be recovered. > While it is true that the NSA probably can't do the intercepts without any > help, we can't build an Internet without intermediaries either. The question > at issue should be not whether an intermediary can default but whether that > default could be detected. Given that current belief is that both submarine and physical cables have been tapped, cross-factored with what I believe of the capabilities of multiple nations to perform undersea taps (you can read about in in Wikipedia), I believe we can assume that surveillance can and does occur without the assistance of intermediaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence_operational_platforms_by_nation So I second PHB's suggestion that discussion of capability-by-attacker be avoided, and we simply make the presumptions that wires leak, intermediary nodes at all protocol layers are compromised, and that you can be betrayed by anybody at any time, so no trust is absolute. yes, I had a large box of paranoia for breakfast. -- Dean
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
