Auteur Sujet: Hillary Clinton veut un genre de "projet Manhattan" pour casser le chiffrement  (Lu 1187 fois)

0 Membres et 1 Invité sur ce sujet


  • Invité
Hillary Clinton backs controversial encryption commission in new tech-policy agenda

Hillary Clinton does not have an answer to the encryption question.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee released her technology agenda on Tuesday, revealing her vision for the future of the internet under a Clinton presidency.

When it comes to encryption, Clinton supported a presidential commission formally proposed in February by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). “This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests,” Clinton's technology agenda reads.

The Warner-McCaul commission—which would be made up of 16 members with a variety expertise on technology, business, and law enforcement—would address a range of civil liberties issues related to technology. Each party would select eight members to serve on the commission.

Digital-rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), have come out against the encryption commission.

"It’s the widely held consensus of countless computer scientists, technology companies, and national security experts that it is impossible to build a backdoor into encrypted products without compromising cyber security and privacy," Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the ACLU, told the Daily Dot in December after Warner and McCaul first floated the commission idea. "We don’t need yet another commission to conclude, as the President’s Review Group has already done, that the U.S. government shouldn’t support policies that weaken encryption."

Earlier in her campaign, Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like project" to break encryption and offer special backdoor access to government.

One key distinction left unsaid by Clinton is that, unlike the Manhattan Project, through which the United States developed its first nuclear weapons, the vast majority of technologists believe there is no way to offer backdoor access to encryption for government while maintaining high levels of cybersecurity.

In 2011, as secretary of state, Clinton was one of the world's most forceful proponents of funding strong encryption technology. She argued that the technology promoted freedom around the world despite the threats posed by terrorist users not unlike those seen today.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has offered loud proclamations but no real specifics. Trump urged a boycott of Apple over their refusal to unlock a terrorist's phone, for instance, and then he continued to use Apple products.

In Congress, the issue of encryption reared its head once again when Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, focused on the issue in this weekend’s Republican Party weekly address.

Burr warned that "laws that were enacted to provide authorities and capabilities to our law enforcement and intelligence community agencies are out of date, stale and in some cases, no longer applicable."

He said the Islamic State is using encrypted apps to plan attacks, which he cited as another reason to act. The Islamic State's technology arm, known as Afaaq Electronic Foundation (AEF), has issued advice for how ISIS militants can use secure messaging apps.

Burr and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill guaranteeing special backdoor access to encryption for government this year, but the rest of Congress has so far has been silent, giving the legislation little chance of passing. Burr's address may signal a renewed push for action on encryption in Congress.

Source :


Je trouve l'analogie avec le projet Manhattan particulièrement foireuse.

Le Donald lui n'y connait clairement rien en informatique.


  • Invité
Hillary Clinton veut un genre de "projet Manhattan" pour casser le chiffrement
« Réponse #1 le: 22 octobre 2016 à 16:36:12 »
Pour changer, je cite quelqu'un qui sait de quoi il parle (c'est moi qui met en gras) :

The Value of Encryption
Bruce Schneier

The Ripon Forum
April 2016

In today's world of ubiquitous computers and networks, it's hard to overstate the value of encryption. Quite simply, encryption keeps you safe. Encryption protects your financial details and passwords when you bank online. It protects your cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers. If you encrypt your laptop — and I hope you do — it protects your data if your computer is stolen. It protects your money and your privacy.

Encryption protects the identity of dissidents all over the world. It's a vital tool to allow journalists to communicate securely with their sources, NGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and attorneys to communicate privately with their clients.

Encryption protects our government. It protects our government systems, our lawmakers, and our law enforcement officers. Encryption protects our officials working at home and abroad. During the whole Apple vs. FBI debate, I wondered if Director James Comey realized how many of his own agents used iPhones and relied on Apple's security features to protect them.

Encryption protects our critical infrastructure: our communications network, the national power grid, our transportation infrastructure, and everything else we rely on in our society. And as we move to the Internet of Things with its interconnected cars and thermostats and medical devices, all of which can destroy life and property if hacked and misused, encryption will become even more critical to our personal and national security.

Security is more than encryption, of course. But encryption is a critical component of security. While it's mostly invisible, you use strong encryption every day, and our Internet-laced world would be a far riskier place if you did not.

When it's done right, strong encryption is unbreakable encryption. Any weakness in encryption will be exploited — by hackers, criminals, and foreign governments. Many of the hacks that make the news can be attributed to weak or — even worse — nonexistent encryption.

The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a "backdoor," because it's a way to access the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries as well. This is critical to understand. I can't build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn't work that way.

If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the backdoor and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it's a fragile secret. Backdoors are one of the primary ways to attack computer systems.

This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can the Chinese. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently pointed out that he used to break into networks using these exact sorts of backdoors. Backdoors weaken us against all sorts of threats.

Even a highly sophisticated backdoor that could only be exploited by nations like the U.S. and China today will leave us vulnerable to cybercriminals tomorrow. That's just the way technology works: things become easier, cheaper, more widely accessible. Give the FBI the ability to hack into a cell phone today, and tomorrow you'll hear reports that a criminal group used that same ability to hack into our power grid.

Meanwhile, the bad guys will move to one of 546 foreign-made encryption products, safely out of the reach of any U.S. law.

Either we build encryption systems to keep everyone secure, or we build them to leave everybody vulnerable.

The FBI paints this as a trade-off between security and privacy. It's not. It's a trade-off between more security and less security. Our national security needs strong encryption. This is why so many current and former national security officials have come out on Apple's side in the recent dispute: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Richard Clarke, Ash Carter, William Lynn, Mike McConnell.

J'image que le bouffon va dire qu'il est si grand qu'il va trouver la solution, parce qu'il connait mieux la stratégie militaire que les généraux et mieux la cryptanalyse que les cryptanalystes, et que la folle criminelle qui devrait être en prison actuellement va juste faire semblant de ne rien avoir entendu ou dire qu'elle a oublié ces élèments à cause de ses pertes de mémoire, suite à son accident.


  • Invité
Hillary Clinton veut un genre de "projet Manhattan" pour casser le chiffrement
« Réponse #2 le: 22 octobre 2016 à 16:47:25 »
EXCLUSIVE: Gov. Gary Johnson Stands Firmly with Apple in Encryption Battle

I caught up recently with Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor of New Mexico who is currently a presidential candidate for the libertarian party, to discuss the FBI-Apple encryption dispute, the state of libertarianism, and Donald Trump.

Gov. Johnson, who was the libertarian party’s nominee in 2012 after a short-lived run for the Republican nomination, received 1.2 million votes in the general election. He is a staunch anti-authoritarian who describes his own beliefs as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”

We spoke at length about the FBI-Apple encryption dispute, which has occurred in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Johnson sided firmly with Apple, citing his concerns that creating backdoor access to all iPhones would pose security and privacy threats: “They’re not providing one key to open the door, they’re providing a master key that will open all the doors.”

He expressed skepticism about the FBI’s purported claim that they need Apple’s cooperation in order to access a smartphone’s internal data. He claimed to be “slain by the fact that the FBI does not have the capability to do this themselves.” Since our conversation, the Department of Justice has suggested that the FBI may be closer to cracking into the iPhone without Apple’s assistance.
Although many will argue voting for a third-party candidate is throwing away a vote, perhaps Gov. Johnson is asking us rather to vote simply to get a good night’s sleep. As Henry David Thoreau commanded: “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.”

Source :


  • Client Orange Fibre
  • *
  • Messages: 547
  • Conflans Sainte Honorine (78)
Hillary Clinton veut un genre de "projet Manhattan" pour casser le chiffrement
« Réponse #3 le: 24 octobre 2016 à 09:20:26 »
Ce n'est pas une si mauvaise chose:
- au moins les mathématiciens auront toujours du boulot pour trouver les failles => va-t-on voir la fin du RSA et de sa fameuse "protection" : on n'est pas capable de factoriser rapidement un si grand nombre ?
- au moins les mathématiciens auront toujours du boulot pour trouver de nouveaux algorithmes => plus d'algorithmes de chiffrement asymétrique - voir pourquoi pas un chiffrement asymétrique ET performant, fin du chiffrement symétrique à moins de 256 bits, etc
- et pour les troyens ou autre, cela fuitera bien évidemment un jour


  • Invité
Hillary Clinton veut un genre de "projet Manhattan" pour casser le chiffrement
« Réponse #4 le: 24 octobre 2016 à 23:38:08 »
Ce n'est pas une si mauvaise chose:
- au moins les mathématiciens auront toujours du boulot pour trouver les failles
- au moins les mathématiciens auront toujours du boulot pour trouver de nouveaux algorithmes
Parce qu'actuellement les cryptologistes n'ont pas de travail?


Mobile View