851 lines
38 KiB
Plaintext
851 lines
38 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
Computer underground Digest Tue Aug 17 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 62
|
||
ISSN 1004-042X
|
||
|
||
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
||
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
||
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
||
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
||
Ian Dickinson
|
||
Copie Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior
|
||
|
||
CONTENTS, #5.62 (Aug 17 1993)
|
||
File 1--CU News ("Software felons," "Valuing Info," et. al.)
|
||
File 2--CuNews ("Technofogies" and more)
|
||
File 3--Another BBS Seizure in Hartford
|
||
File 4--Call for Clipper Comments
|
||
|
||
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
|
||
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The
|
||
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
|
||
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
|
||
60115.
|
||
|
||
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
|
||
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
|
||
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
|
||
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
|
||
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
|
||
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
|
||
on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
|
||
WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020
|
||
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
|
||
nodes and points welcome.
|
||
EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;
|
||
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
|
||
|
||
ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
|
||
UNITED STATES: ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
|
||
etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/cud
|
||
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
|
||
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud
|
||
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
|
||
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
|
||
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
|
||
|
||
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
|
||
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
|
||
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
|
||
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
|
||
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
|
||
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
|
||
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
|
||
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
|
||
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
|
||
unless absolutely necessary.
|
||
|
||
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
|
||
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
|
||
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
|
||
violate copyright protections.
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 02:01:00 BST
|
||
From: grmeyer@GENIE.GEIS.COM
|
||
Subject: File 1--CU News ("Software felons," "Valuing Info," et. al.)
|
||
|
||
Software Felons
|
||
===============
|
||
A federal grand jury in California handed down felony indictments for
|
||
software piracy near the first week of July. These are the first
|
||
indictments under the law that makes copyright infringement a fel ony.
|
||
The indictments follow coast-to-coast raids over the past four months
|
||
where US Marshals seized over 9.5 millions dollars worth of MS-DOS
|
||
and Windows operating systems.
|
||
(Information Week. July 12, 1993. pg 8)
|
||
|
||
Valuing Information
|
||
===================
|
||
How much are your computer files really worth? The Information
|
||
Systems Security Association has put together a panel to create a
|
||
methodology for determining the value of information. Representatives
|
||
from Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank America, and Motorola are among the
|
||
panel members. The ISSA suggests that valuation can be determined in
|
||
three ways: Cost to acquire/develop/maintain the info, value to
|
||
owners/others, and commercial value.
|
||
(Information Week. July 12, 1993. pg 62)
|
||
|
||
Virus "fax vote" results
|
||
========================
|
||
Information Week magazine recently conducted a self-selected survey
|
||
of IS managers and virus security. Some of the more interesting
|
||
results include:
|
||
|
||
Measures implemented to deal with virus threat:
|
||
65% training
|
||
86% purchased anti-viral software
|
||
|
||
Company practices altered as a result of virus threat:
|
||
49% use of shareware
|
||
47% downloading from BBSs
|
||
|
||
State of the virus threat during the past 12 months:
|
||
48% increased
|
||
34% stayed the same
|
||
|
||
Number of machines infected during past year:
|
||
42% none
|
||
46% less than 25%
|
||
|
||
For the complete results in each category, and for other questions
|
||
and comments, refer to Information Week. July 19, 1993. Pgs 25 and
|
||
following.
|
||
|
||
Holy Data Islands!
|
||
==================
|
||
The Wall Street Journal (July 12, 1993 p B-2) reports that a company
|
||
founded by Ed Leonard has been farming out data for storage at
|
||
monasteries. Customers like the prices, and the dedication and
|
||
discretion of the monks is apparently unmatched.
|
||
(Information Week. July 19, 1993. pg 62)
|
||
|
||
Singapore Piracy
|
||
================
|
||
Lotus and Novell have filed criminal charges against a man and wife
|
||
in Singapore after they were found guilty in a civil suit for
|
||
copyright and trademark violations. The companies obtained a court or
|
||
der to freeze nearly one million dollars in assets belonging to the
|
||
pair, who had sold thousands of illegal software copies in Southeast
|
||
Asia.
|
||
(Information Week. May 10, 1993. pg. 8)
|
||
|
||
Computer Ethics Institute Conference
|
||
====================================
|
||
Information Week reports that Congressman Edward Markey (D - Mass.)
|
||
made the following remarks at the conference.
|
||
|
||
"Just because personal information can be collected electronically,
|
||
can be gleaned off the network as people call 800 number or click
|
||
channels on the television, or can be cross-referenced into
|
||
sophisticated lists and put on line for sale to others, does not
|
||
mean that it has been technologically predetermined that privacy
|
||
and social mores should be bent to that capability. (...) The
|
||
Constitution is a 200-year-old parchment, simply because we digitize
|
||
the words should not suggest their meanings change." Later, Markey
|
||
commented that "Real harm can be done in the virtual world."
|
||
|
||
Refer to "Ethics and Cyberculture" , Information Week, May 10, 1993
|
||
pg. 60 for more information on the conference and Markey's speech.
|
||
|
||
Follow-up on Epson America Email Case
|
||
=====================================
|
||
Alana Shoars, plaintiff in a case against Epson America, reports that
|
||
she's "slogging forward" with the case. Shoars was dismissed from her
|
||
Email administrator job in January 1990 after she complained that by
|
||
monitoring employees' Email the company was invading their privacy.
|
||
Her wrongful termination lawsuit, as well as a class-action lawsuit
|
||
brought on behalf of 170 Epson employees, is in appellate court.
|
||
(Information Week. July 26, 1993. pg 62)
|
||
|
||
Political Censorship at Microsoft?
|
||
==================================
|
||
Gregory Steshenko was allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union to
|
||
the US in 1987. Last September he landed a job with Microsoft as a
|
||
support engineer. Last month he was fired, he says, for sending
|
||
political messages over the Internet. Microsoft contends it was solely
|
||
for performance reasons. Steshenko's messages typically centered on
|
||
the political situation in his native Ukraine, and his view that the
|
||
Ukrainian government is more corrupt than the previous Communist
|
||
government. ( In fact, Steshenko was once imprisoned in the Soviet
|
||
Union for spreading "anti-Soviet propaganda"). He comments: ". ..it
|
||
looks to me like I've found another kind of Big Brother. In the Soviet
|
||
Union it was the party and the state. In the US, it is the
|
||
corporation."
|
||
(Information Week. July 26, 1993. pg 62)
|
||
|
||
Fraud Free with AT&T
|
||
====================
|
||
AT&T has announced a service that will help protect corporate calling
|
||
card users from fraudulent use of their card number:
|
||
|
||
AT&T Card Protect (sm) Service gives you real control over card
|
||
usage. To help prevent unauthorized use, we offer you a range of
|
||
measures such as geographic restrictions, purchase limits and
|
||
account passwords to meet your specific calling needs.
|
||
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, our Fraud Analysis and Surveillance
|
||
Center provides state-of-the-art security coverage for every one of
|
||
your employee's cards. It helps to identify unauthorized card use
|
||
in real time, allowing prompt action to be taken.
|
||
|
||
Dr. Dobb's Editor Speaks Out Against Clipper Chip
|
||
=================================================
|
||
Jonathan Erickson, editor-in-chief of Dr. Dobb's Journal, writes
|
||
about the government's "clipper" chip in his July 1993 editorial. Mr.
|
||
Erickson begins by describing some of the antics and crimes of Ke vin
|
||
Poulsen, a hacker whose story is familiar to regular CuD readers.
|
||
After discussing Paulsen, the gist of the FBI's proposal, and the
|
||
clipper Erickson concludes with this statement:
|
||
Money and export concerns aside, the real issues remain those of
|
||
privacy and the government's attitude towards its citizens. What
|
||
we're witnessing is a fundamental shift from what we've considered
|
||
to be our Constitutional right to privacy to a view that the
|
||
government is privy to our most private conversations. This alone
|
||
is enough to make Kevin Poulsen look like nothing more than an
|
||
angel with a dirty face.
|
||
(Dr. Dobb's Journal. July 1993. pg 8)
|
||
|
||
Nosy Bosses
|
||
===========
|
||
Based on a survey in Macworld, an estimated 20 million US employees
|
||
may be victims of electronic monitoring on the job. Of the 21% of
|
||
employers admitting to checking up on employees, 74% had searched
|
||
electronic work files, 42% had searched workers' email and 15% had
|
||
searched voice mail. When the survey asked why, the nosy respondents
|
||
replied that their snooping was to monitor work flow or to invest
|
||
igate espionage and theft.
|
||
(Communications of the ACM. Aug 1993. pg 9 reprinted with permission)
|
||
|
||
Lax on Tapes
|
||
============
|
||
The Clinton administration has been blasted by a federal judge on its
|
||
promise to make good on preserving nearly 6,000 computerized White
|
||
House records that hold millions of National Security Council e mail
|
||
messages. In January the judge ordered the tapes copied for
|
||
preservation. As of late June, the judge threatened to fine the White
|
||
House and National Archives $50K a day for not complying with prior
|
||
orders each day the tapes aren't copied. Justice Department lawyers
|
||
have tried in vain to appeal the order, citing the timetable of the
|
||
task as causing "irreparable disruption of White House operations".
|
||
(Communications of the ACM. Aug 1993. pg 10 reprinted with permission)
|
||
|
||
Disco Tech
|
||
==========
|
||
Timothy Leary, the Harvard prof known for his hallucinogenic
|
||
escapades in the '60s and Virtual Reality experimentation of more
|
||
recent times, has designed the VR programs for Light, Wisdom, and
|
||
Sound, a new night club in New York. VR could be on the brink of
|
||
rivaling dance floors as nightlife entertainment. However, club
|
||
owners are worried that happy clubbers may never leave the private
|
||
VR sex room once they get in - it's one of the main attractions of
|
||
the club.
|
||
(Communications of the ACM. Aug 1993. pg 10 reprinted with permission)
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
From: grmeyer@GENIE.GEIS.COM
|
||
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 93 21:38:00 BST
|
||
Subject: File 2--CuNews ("Technofogies" and more)
|
||
|
||
Technofogies
|
||
=============
|
||
A survey by Dell Computer Corp found that technophobia is alive and
|
||
well in the United States. In a survey of 500 adults and 1000
|
||
teenagers found that about 25% of the adults has never used a
|
||
computer, programmed a VCR, or set-up the stations on their car radio.
|
||
About a third said they feared they might damage a computer during
|
||
normal use, and a quarter of them said they wouldn't use a computer un
|
||
less they were forced to do so. About the same percentage said they
|
||
still miss their typewriters. As you might expect, the results were
|
||
drastically different for the teens in the sample. Only 8% of them had
|
||
never used a computer. About the same percentage said they felt
|
||
uncomfortable using one without assistance. Roughly two-thirds of
|
||
both groups said they wished computer terminology was easier to
|
||
understand. Contact Dell Computer Corp for more information about the
|
||
study.
|
||
(Information Week. August 2, 1993 pg. 46)
|
||
|
||
More on "Tiger Teams"
|
||
=====================
|
||
Harlan Crouse, a security specialist with the US Army, has a guest
|
||
editorial in the August 2, 1993 issue of Information Week (pg. 52).
|
||
Crouse responds to IW's earlier story about firms that use so-called
|
||
'tiger teams' of ex-hackers to test security. The following are some
|
||
excerpts from the editorial.
|
||
|
||
...using convicted computer criminals to do information security work
|
||
is the height of folly. We don't use former armed robbers as bank
|
||
guards and we don't use child molesters as sex therapists; why should
|
||
we trust our precious information to convicted felons?
|
||
(...)
|
||
Common sense dictates that if you something to valuable, you work to
|
||
protect it. That means all the time - not just when it's convenient
|
||
or when a security deficiency has become nearly disastrous. What would
|
||
you think of people who lock the door to their houses only sometimes, or
|
||
only after their houses have already been burglarized?
|
||
|
||
Lapses in security are almost always traceable, directly or indirectly,
|
||
to management's inattention to the need to protect organizational
|
||
assets. Yet managers are seldom held accountable for their negligence.
|
||
Unfortunately, it's the taxpayers, customers, stockholders, and
|
||
employees who pay.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 11:58:26 GMT
|
||
From: Wes Morgan <morgan@ENGR.UKY.EDU>
|
||
Subject: File 3--Another BBS Seizure in Hartford
|
||
|
||
This was posted to Usenet's alt.censorship newsgroup.
|
||
|
||
> * Forwarded by MATT GIWER from the Main Board conference.
|
||
> * Original from DON KIMBERLIN to ALL on 08-09-93.
|
||
>
|
||
>Date: 08-03-93 (22:35) Number: 1089
|
||
>From: KENNETH PAVLAK Refer#: NONE
|
||
> To: ALL Recvd: NO
|
||
>Subj: Sysop held on $500,000 Bail Conf: (24) F-Law&Dis
|
||
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
>The Hartford Courant on August 5, 1993 (page b-4) stated that a 21 year
|
||
>old computer BBS operator was arrested for maintaining a computer
|
||
>bulletin board that had a bomb making recipe.
|
||
>
|
||
>Michael Elansky was charged by the West Hartford police with inciting
|
||
>injury to persons or property - a felony charge - and risk of injury
|
||
>to a minor.
|
||
>
|
||
>He was held in lieu of $500,000 bond (in CT the bond for a person accused
|
||
>of murder is normally $100,000)
|
||
>
|
||
>Det. Capt. James Gustafson said the case was "sealed" and no information
|
||
>could be released.
|
||
>
|
||
>Michal Elansky's father said information from the Anarchists Cook Book
|
||
>(Available from Paladin Press, P.O. Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306,
|
||
>phone 303-443-7250) was on the bbs placed there by person or persons
|
||
>unknown; it was impossible for his son to keep track of due to the
|
||
>number of calls to his bbs.
|
||
>
|
||
>And so, Big Brother now says that passing along information will get
|
||
>a person 21 years old locked up on a half a million dollars bail, while
|
||
>accused murderers get out on 100,000 dollars. The newspaper did not
|
||
>say if the computer or the files from it were taken.
|
||
>
|
||
>Can the people who were on that bbs look forward to a "Visit" from
|
||
>the servants of Big Brother?
|
||
>
|
||
>Will they be arrested if they downloaded VERBOTEN information? Will
|
||
>there be MASS ARRESTS of people who have knowledge that is no longer
|
||
>permitted?
|
||
>
|
||
>Time will tell
|
||
>
|
||
>=== GEcho 1.00
|
||
>
|
||
> * SPEED 1.30 >01< * Remember, god works in meaningless ways.
|
||
>
|
||
>
|
||
>--
|
||
>Internet: Matt Giwer@mechanic.fidonet.org
|
||
>UUCP: ...!myrddin!mechanic!326!Matt.Giwer
|
||
>Note: mechanic is a Fidonet<>USENET gate for TAMPA BAY,FL.
|
||
> The opinions stated in this post are only my own!
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 14:23:16 EST
|
||
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@WASHOFC.CPSR.ORG>
|
||
Subject: File 4--Call for Clipper Comments
|
||
|
||
Call for Clipper Comments
|
||
|
||
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued a
|
||
request for public comments on its proposal to establish the
|
||
"Skipjack" key-escrow system as a Federal Information Processing
|
||
Standard (FIPS). The deadline for the submission of comments is
|
||
September 28, 1993. The full text of the NIST notice follows.
|
||
|
||
CPSR is urging all interested individuals and organizations to express
|
||
their views on the proposal and to submit comments directly to NIST.
|
||
Comments need not be lengthy or very detailed; all thoughtful
|
||
statements addressing a particular concern will likely contribute to
|
||
NIST's evaluation of the key-escrow proposal.
|
||
|
||
The following points could be raised about the NIST proposal
|
||
(additional materials on Clipper and the key escrow proposal may be
|
||
found at the CPSR ftp site, cpsr.org):
|
||
|
||
* The potential risks of the proposal have not been assessed and many
|
||
questions about the implementation remain unanswered. The NIST notice
|
||
states that the current proposal "does not include identification of
|
||
key escrow agents who will hold the keys for the key escrow
|
||
microcircuits or the procedures for access to the keys." The key
|
||
escrow configuration may also create a dangerous vulnerability in a
|
||
communications network. The risks of misuse of this feature should be
|
||
weighed against any perceived benefit.
|
||
|
||
* The classification of the Skipjack algorithm as a "national
|
||
security" matter is inappropriate for technology that will be used
|
||
primarily in civilian and commercial applications. Classification of
|
||
technical information also limits the computing community's ability to
|
||
evaluate fully the proposal and the general public's right to know
|
||
about the activities of government.
|
||
|
||
* The proposal was not developed in response to a public concern or a
|
||
business request. It was put forward by the National Security Agency
|
||
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation so that these two agencies
|
||
could continue surveillance of electronic communications. It has not
|
||
been established that is necessary for crime prevention. The number
|
||
of arrests resulting from wiretaps has remained essentially unchanged
|
||
since the federal wiretap law was enacted in 1968.
|
||
|
||
* The NIST proposal states that the escrow agents will provide the key
|
||
components to a government agency that "properly demonstrates legal
|
||
authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of communications
|
||
which are encrypted." The crucial term "legal authorization" has not
|
||
been defined. The vagueness of the term "legal authorization" leaves
|
||
open the possibility that court-issued warrants may not be required in
|
||
some circumstances. This issue must be squarely addressed and
|
||
clarified.
|
||
|
||
* Adoption of the proposed key escrow standard may have an adverse
|
||
impact upon the ability of U.S. manufacturers to market cryptographic
|
||
products abroad. It is unlikely that non-U.S. users would purchase
|
||
communication security products to which the U.S. government holds
|
||
keys.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Comments on the NIST proposal should be sent to:
|
||
|
||
Director, Computer Systems Laboratory
|
||
ATTN: Proposed FIPS for Escrowed Encryption Standard
|
||
Technology Building, Room B-154
|
||
National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
||
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
|
||
|
||
Submissions must be received by September 28, 1993. CPSR has
|
||
asked NIST that provisions be made to allow for electronic
|
||
submission of comments.
|
||
|
||
Please also send copies of your comments on the key escrow
|
||
proposal to CPSR for inclusion in the CPSR Internet Library, our
|
||
ftp site. Copies should be sent to <clipper@washofc.cpsr.org>.
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
FEDERAL REGISTER
|
||
VOL. 58, No. 145
|
||
|
||
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
|
||
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
|
||
|
||
Docket No. 930659-3159
|
||
RIN 0693-AB19
|
||
|
||
A Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard for an Escrowed
|
||
Encryption Standard (EES)
|
||
|
||
58 FR 40791
|
||
|
||
Friday, July 30, 1993
|
||
|
||
Notice; request for comments.
|
||
|
||
SUMMARY: A Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for an
|
||
Escrowed Encryption Standard (EES) is being proposed. This proposed
|
||
standard specifies use of a symmetric-key encryption/decryption
|
||
algorithm and a key escrowing method which are to be implemented in
|
||
electronic devices and used for protecting certain unclassified
|
||
government communications when such protection is required. The
|
||
algorithm and the key escrowing method are classified and are
|
||
referenced, but not specified, in the standard.
|
||
|
||
This proposed standard adopts encryption technology developed by
|
||
the Federal government to provide strong protection for unclassified
|
||
information and to enable the keys used in the encryption and
|
||
decryption processes to be escrowed. This latter feature will assist
|
||
law enforcement and other government agencies, under the proper legal
|
||
authority, in the collection and decryption of electronically
|
||
transmitted information. This proposed standard does not include
|
||
identification of key escrow agents who will hold the keys for the
|
||
key escrow microcircuits or the procedures for access to the keys.
|
||
These issues will be addressed by the Department of Justice.
|
||
|
||
The purpose of this notice is to solicit views from the public,
|
||
manufacturers, and Federal, state, and local government users so that
|
||
their needs can be considered prior to submission of this proposed
|
||
standard to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval.
|
||
|
||
The proposed standard contains two sections: (1) An announcement
|
||
section, which provides information concerning the applicability,
|
||
implementation, and maintenance of the standard; and (2) a
|
||
specifications section which deals with the technical aspects of the
|
||
standard. Both sections are provided in this notice.
|
||
|
||
DATES: Comments on this proposed standard must be received on or
|
||
before September 28, 1993.
|
||
|
||
ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the proposed standard should be
|
||
sent to: Director, Computer Systems Laboratory, ATTN: Proposed FIPS
|
||
for Escrowed Encryption Standard, Technology Building, room B-154,
|
||
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
|
||
20899.
|
||
|
||
Written comments received in response to this notice will be
|
||
made part of the public record and will be made available for
|
||
inspection and copying in the Central Reference and Records
|
||
Inspection Facility, room 6020, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th
|
||
Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW.,
|
||
Washington, DC 20230.
|
||
|
||
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dennis Branstad, National
|
||
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,
|
||
telephone (301) 975-2913.
|
||
|
||
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed FIPS implements the
|
||
initiative announced by the White House Office of the Press
|
||
Secretary on April 16, 1993. The President of the U.S. approved a
|
||
Public Encryption Management directive, which among other actions,
|
||
called for standards to facilitate the procurement and use of
|
||
encryption devices fitted with key-escrow microcircuits in
|
||
Federal communication systems that process sensitive, but
|
||
unclassified information.
|
||
|
||
Dated: July 26, 1993.
|
||
|
||
Arati Prabhakar,
|
||
Director.(NIST)
|
||
|
||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
||
Federal Information Processing Standards Publication XX
|
||
1993 XX
|
||
Announcing the Escrowed Encryption Standard (EES)
|
||
|
||
Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)
|
||
are issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
|
||
(NIST) after approval by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section
|
||
111(d) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
|
||
as amended by the Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 100-235.
|
||
|
||
Name of Standard: Escrowed Encryption Standard (EES).
|
||
|
||
Category of Standard: Telecommunications Security.
|
||
|
||
Explanation: This Standard specifies use of a symmetric-key
|
||
encryption (and decryption) algorithm and a Law Enforcement Access
|
||
Field (LEAF) creation method (one part of a key escrow system) which
|
||
provide for decryption of encrypted telecommunications when
|
||
interception of the telecommunications is lawfully authorized. Both
|
||
the algorithm and the LEAF creation method are to be implemented in
|
||
electronic devices (e.g., very large scale integration chips). The
|
||
devices may be incorporated in security equipment used to encrypt (and
|
||
decrypt) sensitive unclassified telecommunications data. Decryption of
|
||
lawfully intercepted telecommunications may be achieved through the
|
||
acquisition and use of the LEAF, the decryption algorithm and escrowed
|
||
key components.
|
||
|
||
To escrow something (e.g., a document, an encryption key) means
|
||
that it is "delivered to a third person to be given to the grantee
|
||
only upon the fulfillment of a condition" (Webster's Seventh New
|
||
Collegiate Dictionary). A key escrow system is one that entrusts
|
||
components of a key used to encrypt telecommunications to third
|
||
persons, called key component escrow agents. In accordance with the
|
||
common definition of "escrow", the key component escrow agents provide
|
||
the key components to a "grantee" (i.e., a government agency) only
|
||
upon fulfillment of the condition that the grantee properly
|
||
demonstrates legal authorization to conduct electronic surveillance of
|
||
communications which are encrypted using the specific device whose key
|
||
component is requested. The key components obtained through this
|
||
process are then used by the grantee to reconstruct the device unique
|
||
key and obtain the session key (contained in the LEAF) which is used
|
||
to decrypt the telecommunications that are encrypted with that device.
|
||
The term, "escrow", for purposes of this standard, is restricted to
|
||
the dictionary definition.
|
||
|
||
The encryption/decryption algorithm has been approved for
|
||
government applications requiring encryption of sensitive unclassified
|
||
telecommunications of data as defined herein. The specific operations
|
||
of the algorithm and the LEAF creation method are classified and hence
|
||
are referenced, but not specified, in this standard.
|
||
|
||
Data, for purposes of this standard, includes voice, facsimile and
|
||
computer information communicated in a telephone system. Telephone
|
||
system, for purposes of this standard, is limited to systems
|
||
circuit-switched up to no more than 14.4 kbs or which use basic-rate
|
||
ISDN, or to a similar grade wireless service.
|
||
|
||
Data that is considered sensitive by a responsible authority should
|
||
be encrypted if it is vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure during
|
||
telecommunications. A risk analysis should be performed under the
|
||
direction of a responsible authority to determine potential threats
|
||
and risks. The costs of providing encryption using this standard as
|
||
well as alternative methods and their respective costs should be
|
||
projected. A responsible authority should then make a decision, based
|
||
on the risk and cost analyses, whether or not to use encryption and
|
||
then whether or not to use this standard.
|
||
|
||
Approving Authority: Secretary of Commerce.
|
||
|
||
Maintenance Agency: Department of Commerce, National Institute of
|
||
Standards and Technology.
|
||
|
||
Applicability: This standard is applicable to all Federal departments
|
||
and agencies and their contractors under the conditions specified
|
||
below. This standard may be used in designing and implementing
|
||
security products and systems which Federal departments and agencies
|
||
use or operate or which are operated for them under contract. These
|
||
products may be used when replacing Type II and Type III (DES)
|
||
encryption devices and products owned by the government and government
|
||
contractors.
|
||
|
||
This standard may be used when the following conditions apply:
|
||
|
||
1. An authorized official or manager responsible for data security
|
||
or the security of a computer system decides that encryption is
|
||
required and cost justified as per OMB Circular A-130; and
|
||
|
||
2. The data is not classified according to the National Security
|
||
Act of 1947, as amended, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
|
||
|
||
However, Federal departments or agencies which use encryption
|
||
devices for protecting data that is classified according to either of
|
||
these acts may use those devices also for protecting unclassified data
|
||
in lieu of this standard.
|
||
|
||
In addition, this standard may be adopted and used by non-Federal
|
||
Government organizations. Such use is encouraged when it provides the
|
||
desired security.
|
||
|
||
Applications: Devices conforming to this standard may be used for
|
||
protecting unclassified communications.
|
||
|
||
Implementations: The encryption/decryption algorithm and the LEAF
|
||
creation method shall be implemented in electronic devices (e.g.,
|
||
electronic chip packages) that can be physically protected against
|
||
unauthorized entry, modification and reverse engineering.
|
||
Implementations which are tested and validated by NIST will be
|
||
considered as complying with this standard. An electronic device shall
|
||
be incorporated into a cyptographic module in accordance with FIPS
|
||
140-1. NIST will test for conformance with FIPS 140-1. Cryptographic
|
||
modules can then be integrated into security equipment for sale and
|
||
use in an application. Information about devices that have been
|
||
validated, procedures for testing equipment for conformance with NIST
|
||
standards, and information about obtaining approval of security
|
||
equipment are available from the Computer Systems Laboratory, NIST,
|
||
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
|
||
|
||
Export Control: Implementations of this standard are subject to
|
||
Federal Government export controls as specified in title 22, Code of
|
||
Federal Regulations, parts 120 through 131 (International Traffic of
|
||
Arms Regulations -ITAR). Exporters of encryption devices, equipment
|
||
and technical data are advised to contact the U.S. Department of
|
||
State, Office of Defense Trade Controls for more information.
|
||
Patents: Implementations of this standard may be covered by U.S. and
|
||
foreign patents.
|
||
|
||
Implementation Schedule: This standard becomes effective thirty days
|
||
following publication of this FIPS PUB.
|
||
|
||
Specifications: Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS
|
||
XXX)(affixed).
|
||
|
||
Cross Index:
|
||
|
||
a. FIPS PUB 46-2, Data Encryption Standard.
|
||
|
||
b. FIPS PUB 81, Modes of Operation of the DES
|
||
|
||
c. FIPS PUB 140-1, Security Requirements for Cryptographic
|
||
Modules.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Glossary:
|
||
|
||
The following terms are used as defined below for purposes of
|
||
this standard:
|
||
|
||
Data-Voice, facsimile and computer information communicated in
|
||
a telephone system.
|
||
|
||
Decryption-Conversion of ciphertext to plaintext through the
|
||
use of a cryptographic algorithm.
|
||
|
||
Device (cryptographic)-An electronic implementation of the
|
||
encryption/decryption algorithm and the LEAF creation method as
|
||
specified in this standard.
|
||
|
||
Digital data-Data that have been converted to a binary
|
||
representation.
|
||
|
||
Encryption-Conversion of plaintext to ciphertext through the
|
||
use of a cryptographic algorithm.
|
||
|
||
Key components-The values from which a key can be derived (e.g., KU
|
||
sub 1 + KU sub 2).
|
||
|
||
Key escrow -A process involving transferring one or more components
|
||
of a cryptographic key to one or more trusted key component escrow
|
||
agents for storage and later use by government agencies to decrypt
|
||
ciphertext if access to the plaintext is lawfully authorized.
|
||
|
||
LEAF Creation Method 1-A part of a key escrow system that is
|
||
implemented in a cryptographic device and creates a Law Enforcement
|
||
Access Field.
|
||
|
||
Type I cryptography-A cryptographic algorithm or device approved by
|
||
the National Security Agency for protecting classified information.
|
||
|
||
Type II cryptography-A cryptographic algorithm or device
|
||
approved by the National Security Agency for protecting sensitive
|
||
unclassified information in systems as specified in section 2315
|
||
of Title 10 United State Code, or section 3502(2) of Title 44,
|
||
United States Code.
|
||
|
||
Type III cryptography-A cryptographic algorithm or device
|
||
approved as a Federal Information Processing Standard.
|
||
|
||
Type III(E) cryptography-A Type III algorithm or device that is
|
||
approved for export from the United States.
|
||
|
||
Qualifications. The protection provided by a security product or
|
||
system is dependent on several factors. The protection provided by
|
||
this standard against key search attacks is greater than that
|
||
provided by the DES (e.g., the cryptographic key is longer).
|
||
However, provisions of this standard are intended to ensure that
|
||
information encrypted through use of devices implementing this
|
||
standard can be decrypted by a legally authorized entity.
|
||
|
||
Where to Obtain Copies of the Standard: Copies of this
|
||
publication are for sale by the National Technical Information
|
||
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. When
|
||
ordering, refer to Federal Information Processing Standards
|
||
Publication XX (FIPS PUB XX), and identify the title. When
|
||
microfiche is desired, this should be specified. Prices are
|
||
published by NTIS in current catalogs and other issuances. Payment
|
||
may be made by check, money order, deposit account or charged to a
|
||
credit card accepted by NTIS.
|
||
Specifications for the Escrowed Encryption Standard
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
This publication specifies Escrowed Encryption Standard (EES)
|
||
functions and parameters.
|
||
|
||
2. General
|
||
|
||
This standard specifies use of the SKIPJACK cryptographic algorithm
|
||
and the LEAF Creation Method 1 (LCM-1) to be implemented in an
|
||
approved electronic device (e.g., a very large scale integration
|
||
electronic chip). The device is contained in a logical cryptographic
|
||
module which is then integrated in a security product for encrypting
|
||
and decrypting telecommunications.
|
||
|
||
Approved implementations may be procured by authorized
|
||
organizations for integration into security equipment. Devices must be
|
||
tested and validated by NIST for conformance to this standard.
|
||
Cryptographic modules must be tested and validated by NIST for
|
||
conformance to FIPS 140-1.
|
||
|
||
3. Algorithm Specifications
|
||
|
||
The specifications of the encryption/decryption algorithm
|
||
(SKIPJACK) and the LEAF Creation Method 1 (LCM-1) are classified. The
|
||
National Security Agency maintains these classified specifications and
|
||
approves the manufacture of devices which implement the
|
||
specifications. NIST tests for conformance of the devices implementing
|
||
this standard in cryptographic modules to FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 81.
|
||
|
||
4. Functions and Parameters
|
||
|
||
4.1 Functions
|
||
|
||
The following functions, at a minimum, shall be implemented:
|
||
|
||
1. Data Encryption: A session key (80 bits) shall be used to
|
||
encrypt plaintext information in one or more of the following modes of
|
||
operation as specified in FIPS 81: ECB, CBC, OFB (64) CFB (1, 8, 16,
|
||
32, 64).
|
||
|
||
2. Data Decryption: The session key (80 bits) used to encrypt the
|
||
data shall be used to decrypt resulting ciphertext to obtain the data.
|
||
|
||
3. Key Escrow: The Family Key (KF) shall be used to create the
|
||
Law Enforcement Access Field (LEAF) in accordance with the LEAF
|
||
Creation Method 1 (LCM-1). The Session Key shall be encrypted with the
|
||
Device Unique Key and transmitted as part of the LEAF. The security
|
||
equipment shall ensure that the LEAF is transmitted in such a manner
|
||
that the LEAF and ciphertext may be decrypted with legal
|
||
authorization. No additional encryption or modification of the LEAF is
|
||
permitted.
|
||
|
||
4.2 Parameters
|
||
|
||
The following parameters shall be used in performing the prescribed
|
||
functions:
|
||
|
||
1. Device Identifier (DID): The identifier unique to a particular
|
||
device and used by the Key Escrow System.
|
||
|
||
2. Device Unique Key (KU): The cryptographic key unique to a
|
||
particular device and used by the Key Escrow System.
|
||
|
||
3. Cryptographic Protocol Field (CPF): The field identifying the
|
||
registered cryptographic protocol used by a particular application and
|
||
used by the Key Escrow System (reserved for future specification and
|
||
use).
|
||
|
||
4. Escrow Authenticator (EA): A binary pattern that is inserted in
|
||
the LEAF to ensure that the LEAF is transmitted and received properly
|
||
and has not been modified, deleted or replaced in an unauthorized
|
||
manner.
|
||
|
||
5. Initialization Vector (IV): A mode and application dependent
|
||
vector of bytes used to initialize, synchronize and verify the
|
||
encryption, decryption and key escrow functions.
|
||
|
||
6. Family Key (KF): The cryptographic key stored in all devices
|
||
designated as a family that is used to create the LEAF.
|
||
|
||
7. Session Key (KS): The cryptographic key used by a device to
|
||
encrypt and decrypt data during a session.
|
||
|
||
8. Law Enforcement Access Field (LEAF): The field containing the
|
||
encrypted session key and the device identifier and the escrow
|
||
authenticator.
|
||
|
||
5. Implementation
|
||
|
||
The Cryptographic Algorithm and the LEAF Creation Method shall be
|
||
implemented in an electronic device (e.g., VLSI chip) which is highly
|
||
resistant to reverse engineering (destructive or non-destructive) to
|
||
obtain or modify the cryptographic algorithms, the KU, the EA, the
|
||
CPF, the operational KS, or any KU, the EA, the CPF, the operational
|
||
KS, or any other security or Key Escrow System relevant information.
|
||
The device shall be able to be programmed/personalized (i.e., made
|
||
unique) after mass production in such a manner that the DID, KU (or
|
||
its components), KF (or its components) and EA fixed pattern can be
|
||
entered once (and only once) and maintained without external
|
||
electrical power.
|
||
|
||
The LEAF and the IV shall be transmitted with the ciphertext. The
|
||
specifics of the protocols used to create and transmit the LEAF, IV,
|
||
and encrypted data shall be registered and a CPF assigned. The CPF
|
||
shall then be transmitted in accordance with the registered
|
||
specifications.
|
||
|
||
The specific electric, physical and logical interface will vary
|
||
with the implementation. Each approved, registered implementation
|
||
shall have an unclassified electrical, physical and logical interface
|
||
specification sufficient for an equipment manufacturer to understand
|
||
the general requirements for using the device. Some of the
|
||
requirements may be classified and therefore would not be specified in
|
||
the unclassified interface specification.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.62
|
||
************************************
|
||
|
||
|