Re: NSA given a back door into every copy of Windows sold

Sheik Yurbhuti <anon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:YUFB7M4V38857.6429282407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


The thrust of my argument is that Windows MAY have a backdoor. It is

That's not a "thrust", in fact it's not even really an argument at all.
It's synonymous to arguing that it may rain next week, or that you may
wear a blue shirt some day. It's acknowledging a possibility, not
stating when or if it will actually happen. I don't see where anyone at
all says it couldn't happen, just that it isn't probable.


Whether it may rain next week is of considerable importance to some
constituencies, such as farmers (not to mention futures markets in
agricultural commodities). Whether Windows may have a backdoor is of
even more widespread importance and interest. "May" is a very important
word and arguments involving it as not so easily dismissed as you
apparently think. At least not by other than the rashly cavalier.

The word "may" conveys potential, possibility, probability, or
contingency, true (ignoring for the time being its optative aspects).
But if we confine ourselves in security and privacy matters solely to
situations where apodictic certainty is achievable, then, sooner or
later, very strong and very chill breezes will blow on our naked butts
hanging out there exposed to those contingent but very real winds.

There's another word I'd like to which I'd like to draw your attention:
"risk" also conveys possibility or contingency rather than certainty, but
only a fool would draw the inference that risks should therefore be
ignored.

So we must, if we are not fools, examine possibilities, examine
contingencies, examine risks, examine the implications of "may." For,
sadly, in this vale of tears, almost all of our knowledge is limited to
probabilites and almost all of the propositions regarding our supposed
knowledge should properly be prefixed by "may."


Circumstantial evidence. And a logical fallacy of foregone conclusion.
This part of your argument is nothing more than the assumption that if
something can happen, it will.


As Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when
you find a trout in the milk."


US intelligence agencies have means, motive and opportunity for
backdooring it, and there is a known case of them actually having
done so in a similar situation (Crypto AG). (It is conceivable as

Crypto AG was *not* a similar situation, except in the most tenuous
stretch of the term "similar". For one, Crypto AG was a foreign entity,
and as such the rights and laws that govern a local business like
Microsoft didn't apply. Neither did the morality of subversion against
one's own citizens.


"Means, motive, and opportunity" are the canon for where suspicion should
be directed. USian TLAs have all three in abundance. Not even a blind
man could fail to see the incentive and payoff for backdooring Windows.
Shit, even Windows being closed-source should cause it to be viewed with
a very jaundiced eye with respect to security.

Now couple means, motive, and opportunity with a long and uninterrupted
history of TLAs ignoring and breaking the law (domestic and
international) right up to the headlines in today's newspapers, and the
suspicion becomes yet stronger. Then add a case where a USian TLA
backdoored, not just a general-purpose computer OS, but the top-end
encryption package of a specialty manufacturer (Crypto AG) relied on by
up to 120 governments, both hostile and allies. Finally, add the
tantalizing hints from 1999 that the NSA had actually been tampering with
Windows. No, it's not proof, but my "may" is looking a helluva lot more
solid! More than solid enough to take precautions.

A word to the wise is sufficient, but it seems that you'll only accept an
affidavit from God Himself!

No, it is not necessary to see the fire for the wise to protect their
security from a highly credible risk - billowing smoke is sufficient
warning to all but fools. I'll leave you to be engulfed by the flames
for which you wait, for the certainty which you crave.

The rest of your post - although not unworthy - has been clipped without
response (as, believe it or not, I do have other dimensions to my life
than this newsgroup).

Regards,

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SP2 - Why bother?
    ... where are the major security updates for this OS?" ... A SunSparc with Windows ... >> Since you "don't quite understand the theory of installing SP2", ... > Choices that I make, have associated risk, the risk of programs not ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Why update to SP3?
    ... much better Windows 7 is. ... I think you somewhat exaggerate the risk, but then again, I'm not ... your disposal too (like System Restore, ERUNT, system images, ... I *often* restore my system from image backups after ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Why update to SP3?
    ... much better Windows 7 is. ... I think you somewhat exaggerate the risk, but then again, I'm not ... your disposal too (like System Restore, ERUNT, system images, ... I *often* restore my system from image backups after ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • RE: Password audits
    ... To get around the risk of crashing LSASS, I'd perform a Windows backup of ... the Windows directory and look for the backup SAM file in the Windows/Repair ... Original> having to reboot a DC. ... Original> Cenzic Hailstorm finds vulnerabilities fast. ...
    (Pen-Test)
  • Re: Crypto implementation in consumer encryption software
    ... >literally hundreds of encryption programs using AES, Twofish, ... too many also put every concevable feature in the product - giving ... reasonable risk, and find a product that does what you want. ... most 'consumer' crypto apps don't seem to understand ...
    (sci.crypt)