latest Snowden docs show NSA intercepts all Google and Yahoo DC-to-DC traffic
Randy
randy_94108 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 2 03:29:22 UTC 2013
Big Brother is always watching and Big Brother has way more resources than network-operators in this list!
(good discussion all the same)
a) politics is the last-resort for scoundrels
b) power corrupts and absolute-power(FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS..etc,) corrupts-absolutely.
I speak from this-side-of-the-pond and I have no doubt that this thread is being monitored as well by (b) and no; I don't have my tinfoil-hat on.
To answer your question:
Not Much.
./Randy
----- Original Message -----
> From: Harry Hoffman <hhoffman at ip-solutions.net>
> To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com>
> Cc: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog at bakker.net>; nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2013 7:32 PM
> Subject: Re: latest Snowden docs show NSA intercepts all Google and Yahoo DC-to-DC traffic
>
> So, I'm not sure if I'm being too simple-minded in my response. Please
> let me know if I am.
> The purpose of encrypting data is so others can't read your secrets.
> If you use a simple substitution cipher it's pretty easy to derive the set
> of substitution rules used.
> Stronger encryption algorithms employ more "difficult" math. Figuring
> out how to get from the ciphertext to the plaintext becomes a, computationally,
> difficult task.
> If your encryption algorithms are "good" *and* your source of random
> data is really random then the amount of time it takes to decrypt the data is so
> far out that it makes the data useless.
>
> Cheers,
> Harry
>
> Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So even if Goog or Yahoo encrypt their data between DCs, what stops
>> the NSA from decrypting that data? Or would it be done simply to make
>> their lives a bit more of a PiTA to get the data they want?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2013, at 19:08, Harry Hoffman
> <hhoffman at ip-solutions.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's with a recommendation of using RC4.
>>> Head on over to the Wikipedia page for SSL/TLS and then decide if you
> want rc4 to be your preference when trying to defend against a adversary with
> the resources of a nation-state.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>> Niels Bakker <niels=nanog at bakker.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * mikal at stillhq.com (Michael Still) [Fri 01 Nov 2013, 05:27 CET]:
>>>>> Its about the CPU cost of the crypto. I was once told the
> number of
>>>>> CPUs required to do SSL on web search (which I have now
> forgotten)
>>>>> and it was a bigger number than you'd expect -- certainly
> hundreds.
>>>>
>>>> False:
> https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/06/25/overclocking-ssl.html
>>>>
>>>> "On our production frontend machines, SSL/TLS accounts for
> less than
>>>> 1% of the CPU load, less than 10KB of memory per connection and
> less
>>>> than 2% of network overhead. Many people believe that SSL takes a
> lot
>>>> of CPU time and we hope the above numbers (public for the first
> time)
>>>> will help to dispel that."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Niels.
>>>>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list