Slashdot Log In
More on Cisco Building Surveillance into Routers
Posted by
michael
on Tue Apr 22, 2003 02:10 PM
from the route-around-this dept.
from the route-around-this dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The company recently published a proposal that describes how it plans to embed 'lawful interception' capability into its products. Among the highlights: Eavesdropping 'must be undetectable,' and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another. If an Internet provider uses encryption to preserve its customers' privacy and has access to the encryption keys, it must turn over the intercepted communications to police in a descrambled form." See our earlier story and the RFC for background.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yes, but ... (Score:5, Funny)
Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Cisco too quickly (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Still, if you don't like Cisco's decision, remember that they're not the ones doing the snooping. Cisco is responding to its customers' requests, and if they don't, other hardware vendors will. Cisco's Internet draft may be titled "lawful interception," but there's no guarantee that the capability will always be used legally. If you're looking for someone to blame, consider Attorney General John Ashcroft, who asked for and received sweeping surveillance powers in the USA Patriot Act, along with your elected representatives in Congress, who gave those powers to him with virtually no debate.
(emphasis mine)
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy your cheap $100 or so crypto accelerator [powercrypt.com] now, and learn how to use that OpenSSL CA.sh or CA.pl script [openssl.org]. When you need it, set up TRANSPORT MODE IPSec ESP with isakmpd or PGPNet [uni-erlangen.de] or racoon [kame.net].
Use PGP/GPG. I might be persuaded to help you. Whine, whine, whine, gets you NOWHERE. Roll up your sleeves and get to work or get comfortable like a victim. It's your choice.
The only defense we have is to claim that they cannot require us to communicate in plaintext without violating the first, third, or fifth amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If you're not an American, pass it on: get all your friends to pick up a gun and don't put them down until you get your own Bill of Rights. If you're a pacifist, sit down and don't get up until you get one. Feel free to copy the American version.
Look at the XBone [isi.edu], and think about the possibilities! Don't pay your ISP to snoop on you. If there was snooping, there should ALWAYS be an audit trail to track WHO SNOOPED WHAT, after the fact, so that there is accountability for the violation of basic right to privacy WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LAW (IMnsHO).
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
...because the loss of privacy leads to victimisation.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But Inspector Plod is watching you anyway, and hey, he sees you downloading an interesting piece of porn.
Oh! It turns out you like watching [insert odd sex act here]. He guesses that might mean you are a member of [potentially embarrassing minority group]. He then uses this evidence to make your life hell.
Political groups can use these increased surveillance powers to spy on their opponents. Everyone ends up feeling "watched" and suddenly no-one trusts anyone anymore.
Protect your privacy while you still can.
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
So then Inspector Plod duly notes this. Later, when you speak out on a public issue unpopular with Inspector Plod's superiors, your affection for [insert odd sex act] is mysteriously leaked to the media.
You might want to ask Scott Ritter [nydailynews.com] about a misdemeanor "sealed" arrest record that strangely became public knowledge after he publicly criticized recent Iraq policies.
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:4, Insightful)
In Scott Ritter's case, he was accused propositioned sex from (who he thought) an underage girl over the internet. In fact it was an undercover police officer.
Either the charges are true, or they aren't. If they are true, Ritter should go to prison. If they aren't, then his name is cleared. Otherwise, from your example, Inspector Plod could just make up any old charge he wanted to and "leak it to the media" anyway.
Parent
Re: ain't so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, according to the article, Ritter is alleged to have "had a sexual discussion." This is not at all the same as propositioning.
Was he tried? Was he found guilty? The article doesn't say. What it does say is "The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal."
In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So accordng to the information provided, Ritter is currently innocent of the charges, and likely to remain that way.
There is no reason to release the arrest record, and in fact County officials refused to release the arrest record. In such cases its unethical and likely illegal to release the arrest record.
This leak sounds to me more like the tactics of a police state than a democracy that values freedom. Which is the greater crime; Ritter's alleged misdemeanor, or the leak? Do you think this leak will even be investigated? I'm not holding my breath.
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Parent
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: "You're stupid, just like all the other people that don't agree with me.".
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
Translation: "An authority exists which has the potential to abuse it's power, therefore this authority must be kept weak by other methods, particularly ignorance."
This argument can be applied to remove any law enforcement. Yes, officers with bad attitudes can harass people for any number of reasons, race, sexual preference, or maybe they just got cutoff by a different white Honda on the way to the station this morning. Each of the previous three examples is wrong (as any crime), will always happen (as any crime) and should be punished (as any crime). Trust in law enforcement is a cornerstone of our society and should exist without all of us covering our tracks in daily life like criminals.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Translation: "I couldn't come up with any better arguments so I'm going to resort to name calling again."
Look, I understand that power corrupts. I strongly support individual rights and personal freedoms. But I would prefer to have these freedoms not through the furtive actions of looking over my shoulder to make sure no one is watching, but by the pervasive understanding throughout our society that we respect and even support one another's freedoms. To paraphrase an earlier patriot, I may not agree with what you (legally) do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it!
Note: I will also defend your right to resort to name calling, though I similarly reserve the right to hold it up to public ridicule. Done and done.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, no. We're basically one Supreme Court ruling away from losing substancial liberties -- free speech, free assembly, privacy in our homes and bedrooms, free communication... not to mention second amendment rights, abortion, etc... Be afraid... and for God's sake, don't vote Republican.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democrats want to take away the second amendment rights. The Republicans want to take away the 1st, 4th, abortion, etc.
Wisen up and rise up. Revolution is the only way. Those in power will fight very hard to stay in power. You end up having to ask yourself one question: How much do you value the rights for which millions have fought and died for?
As for me, I'm going to just use a bit of double-think and forget that I had that thought, so I can go on being a happy little sheep in my comfy white-collar suburban world.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that I didn't advocate the violent overthrow of the government, only revolution. Big difference. I've been advocating that publicly for several years.
Incremental changes to our completely hosed system doesn't cut it. The Constitution was a fine document, too bad it wasn't even 20 years before it was spoilt by the greed of men.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the Clipper Chip and encryption export controls? Supported by Clinton and Gore, opposed by Bush and Ashcroft. Republicans aren't great on civil liberties, but I strongly dispute the implication that Democrats are any better.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, I'll just have to wait for my legislators [theonion.com] to be replaced.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
US is one of the most un-democratic countries I have been to, esp when it comes to free speech which is almost non-existent in this country. Free speech is good if you agree with the ruling parties, i.e either with the democrats or the republicans. If your views are not in this line, there is no free-speech. Besides, the US has been a police state for many years now. They violate basic human rights on a daily basis. The impose death penalty on minors. They throw you in jail for failing to pay a traffic ticket or other minor administraive errors.
Talking about democratic rights in the US is a joke. Sad, but true.
Parent
Re:You Just Execised Your Free Speech Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
While this is technically true, there do seem to be a lot of public pressure to fall in line and not express any dissent. Consider for example the war against Iraq. Healthy and possibly crucial public debate is stifled because everyone should be "showing support for the troops".
Let us not also forget the example set by GWB who has said on several occasions that if you do not side with the US in the war on terror, then you are against the US, and apparently a supporter of the terrorists. This is hardly the sort of environment where debate and free speech will flourish.
You may disagree about the death penalty, but its existence in the U.S. doesn't make the U.S. a police state, anymore than its existence in European nations made them police states until they outlawed it. But that fact certainly seems to have given some Europeans a severe of case of unwarranted moral supremacy.
I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your opinion on the second. I believe that the US has executed minors who are generally not held to the same standards as adults most other places on the planet. Furthermore, while he was still a Governor, GWB refused to consider a plea for clemency in the case of a mentally retarded man who was due for execution. I believe those are the sorts of things that cause more civilized nations to claim the moral high ground when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that Gandalf said something to this effect: "Many who live deserve death just as many who die deserve life. Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
Since you're apparently a guest in my country, next time you wish to air your lies in public, at least make a bit of an effort to make yourself credible.
(sigh) No attempt to suppress rational debate there. I think the reference to "lies" was just a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
Parent
Re:You Just Execised Your Free Speech Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're trying to say your friend got pulled over for failing to pay a traffic ticket, and got caught driving with a suspended license. Well, bucko, driving without a license is a crime in the U.S. Sorry he forgot to renew his, but the duration of the license is clearly printed on it. And, no, failure to send someone a polite notice that license is expiring doesn't mean the U.S. is a police state. it simply means your friend is a bit irresponsible.
As for opposing the war, I know lots of people who oppose it, have been pretty vocal about it, and not one of them have been arrested. Now, people do get arrested for blocking traffic, defacing public property or commiting other crimes. Although they assert that they're doing that to protest the war, war protesters have been arrested for their crimes, not their opinions or their speech.
For the record, I've spent close to ten years living outside the U.S., in Europe, Africa, and the Arab Middle East. Apart from the Middle East -- where the media is almost all state controlled and saturated with government lies and propaganda -- I've found news eveywhere to concentrate on local issues. Why? Because that's their audience! And I've also found that most people are fundamentally ignorant of what the U.S. is really all about.
Again, try to come up with some facts to support your falsehoods.
Parent
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats (also known as liberals and socialists) want to take away the right to bear arms as specifically stated in the US Constitution. They want to take away the right to assemble with persons of your own choice, whether in personal or public settings. They also want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-life, Christian, family-oriented, racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, anti-Hollywood, or anti-Democrat.
Republicans (also known as conservatives and the religious right) want to take away a person's right to privacy in their own home to prevent consensual 'crimes', to include recreational drug use, sexual activity with a willing adult of the same sex, and gambling. They want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-choice, anti-christian, feminist, empowering to minorities, homosexual, supporting violence, nudity, profanity, obscenity, etc in movies and songs, or anti-Republican.
I don't see a big difference between either party, they are out for control of your lives to the fullest extent of their power. If only we had a third party candidate we could vote for.
Parent
Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a post to a Cypherpunks mailing list concerning a hypothetical device to crack the 1024 bit keys that are so widely used in ssh and the like. The "machine" would cost between several hundred million to a billion dollars and require a megawatt or so of power, but would make cracking those types of keys childs play.
Considering that spy agencies could spend up to 2 billion USD on satellites, they would be crazy to pass something like this up.
Food for thought...
Parent
This is not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus its not like itsa new form of intrusion or the ersoion of a sacred right. Moreover we have an extensive legal system that already know how to walk an acceptable line between preserving public order and unlawful searches and seizures. yes there are flagrant abuses of course, but the basic level of public expectaion and legal machinery is inplace to deal with this
Thus the real question is if the ascroft era people will try to use this as an end-run around the existing legal machinery. I paraphrase a former missouri senator who said (about carnavor-like intrusion) "I dont put a phone jack on the outside of my house so the feds can listen in when they please, so I dont want a jack on my internet connection for the same purpose". Ironically that senator was the John ascroft before he lost hisz relection bid to a dead man and became the worst attourney general ever including edwin meese. Now he chafes at these restrictions and does indeed want such a jack and the pre-emptive authority to use it without a court order, probable cause, or a defined list of evidence to be gathered.
Thus I welcome the cisco method since it formalizes what is now a covert and thus unmonitored process. thus this may bring the light of public scrutiniy and invite the invocation of past legal precedent.
Parent
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
As it says though, don't blame Cisco. If they didn't do it, sure as shootin' someone else would. Blame Ashcroft. Hopefully Cisco will find a way to build auditing tools into this to help promote responsible use.
No (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Another strike against Cisco. (Score:5, Informative)
Now I certainly feel justified in moving my company off of Cisco's overpriced products.
Thank you slashdot! (Score:4, Interesting)
Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens when a black hat gets in?
Answer: a completely open router that acts like none of his packets have the "evil bit" set.
Really, this is starting to worry me. If it's all undetectable, and is built in, how is this different from the telescreens in 1984? Big Brother is reading your packets!
Re:Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:5, Interesting)
A story (I believe) in "California Lawyer" from maybe 3 years ago noted that Kevin Poulsen, while phreaking, had managed to discover phone taps planted by the US Government in various foreign embassies, including South Africa. A condition of his release was that he was forbidden to discuss the details.
Parent
Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:5, Insightful)
"They" can already get IP logs and such that reveal a lot even without access to the information contained in the packets. Traffic analysis is a very powerful tool. The only people who would really stand a lot to lose from this would be the music and/or warez traders. Warez isn't that big a deal, and music copying isn't a big criminal deal here in Canada.
*shrug* Another cash grab. Hope someone 0wns the system good and makes Cisco look stupid. Oh, wait, DMCA. Nevermind.
Re:Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're passing large amounts of data around that would attract the attention of people who could get a lawful intercept warrant, then I would assume you are smart enough to ...
If you read "Fahrenheit 451" and "This Perfect Day" at the library in the same month, you get your Subversive++ mark in some Fed profile, but you can't find out about it. That's used as justification to a rubber-stamp Justice-R-Us clerk to get a crypto wiretap.
You order a copy of "Linux Exposed!" from Amazon. Hacker++.
You have to fly to an ailing grandmother who had a stroke. You don't know how long you'll be there, so you make it one way. Terrorist++.
You browse a MILF site and there's an image of someone who ain't a MILF. Paedo++.
You get your regular results back from the community clinic. They note some kidney anomalies. AIDS++.
Now, none of these conclusions are justified from the evidence, but they are just "mining." Sure, they'll do proper analysis later. Sure, you'll look like a normal rightful citizen when they trot out all this data in court (or worse, a secret grand jury).
If you don't know what they're seeing about you, how can you possibly guess what conclusions to which they're jumping?
Parent
Lawmeme also covering this story (Score:5, Informative)
sPh
it only bothers the unknowing honest. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I simply send everything encrypted AND send lots of fake packets... I.E. random sized files that consist of the contents of
It's called hiding in a sea of garbage. Now write a nice small program that is a P2P sharing app (or a plug-in for one) that sends around some of those random files to other users (small ones 1-100K in size then keep your files in that size range)
Screw with them as they screw with you.
so a freenet node will completely hose this "eavesdropping system"
multiple hidden wiretaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a 2-Sided Coin (Score:5, Interesting)
So, this outlaws quantum encryption then (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily, we have alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, Cisco knows that companies that used to buy from them will still probably buy from them. So this can't be a huge risk to their company. But the 'new features' would firmly embed government eavesdropping facilities in major ISPs, banks, large companies, schools, universities, etc.
As bad as it sounds, it IS their product (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, tell them why you wont buy their product and choose a competitor that hasn't vowed to violate their users privacy rights.
phones (Score:5, Informative)
Virtually all phone calls (cellular and land line) in America run through certain switches controlled by Verint [verintsystems.com] and they are always used by law enforcement for wiretapping (and are constantly accused of abusing their authority). (Google [google.com] for Comverse, the company's name before the recent change to Verint.)
Those cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Because if they did then all they would do all day is send data to each other through the router about what doughnut, gun, and police force is best...
The funny thing is... I'm an army reserve and Auxiliary Police Officer which means I can make fun of myself!
Since Open Source projects can't be bought (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to create some crypto traffic between my home box and work machine (besides the normal SSH, of course). The more white noise packets floating around out there, the better. TCP/IP spook fodder, if you will.
Better yet, is there an encrypted, routed "internet" I can plug into at will when I'm online, just to obfuscate my traffic a bit? Or is that what Freenet is about?
Re:you want privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that law enforcement agencies are significantly motivated by *politics* -- which may or may not be what's in the best interests of national security, personal liberty, or justice. Today it's Arab terrorists they're targeting. But, perhaps if the recording industry pumps some more money into congress, they'll start locking up college kids for duping Metallica songs.
Locking up real, bone-fide terrorists is fine by me -- indeed, I encourage and support it. But giving some beaurocrat with a hair up his ass more power to invade my privacy is not the way to do it.
Parent
This concept isn't new. (Score:5, Informative)
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.
Parent
Re:yeah, right... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, i did have a lot of porn and various expensise gifts on my credit card, but i dont think that has anything to do with it.
Parent
Re:Since when does LAWFUL intercept mean "Orwellia (Score:5, Insightful)
This government of ours is acquiring ridiculous amounts of power and the freedom to do anything they want with it. This is simply unacceptable.
Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too
Fine. If that is the case, the cops can go get a fucking warrant and actually perform some effort finding evidence. Forcing people to help the feds hoover up potentially incriminating data about _everyone_ is insane. Absolutely nobody would think it a good idea to put master-key capability into locks or bank vaults that only our Beloved Leaders could use. This sort of all-pervasive surveillance combined with the sheer stupidity of current tech laws is a very, very bad combination. The laws cannot be accurately or totally enforced, so they'll be used only for political or corporate pissing matches like the DMCA has been.
Parent