[iwar] [fc:More.technology.may.not.have.stopped.the.attacks]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-22 14:05:29


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2235-1001192731-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5884 invoked by uid 510); 22 Sep 2001 21:05:56 -0000
Received: from n1.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.51) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 21:05:56 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2235-1001192731-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.56] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Sep 2001 21:05:31 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 21:05:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 42855 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 21:05:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 21:05:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 21:05:29 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id OAA21289 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:05:29 -0700
Message-Id: <200109222105.OAA21289@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:More.technology.may.not.have.stopped.the.attacks]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tackling terror with technology
More technology may not have stopped the attacks

By BBC News Online technology correspondent Mark Ward

Experts are warning of the risk of relying on technology to help spot
terrorists before they attack. 

Everyone is outraged by the terrorist attacks, but that's no reason to
suddenly abrogate our rights

Deborah Pierce, EFF They say that the low tech methods used by those
behind last weeks attacks on New York and Washington show it was basic
failures in intelligence work rather than too little technology that
gave the the hijackers their opportunity. 

Civil liberty groups add that intelligence agencies already have more
than enough freedom to intercept communications and acquire records of
electronic communications, and caution against handing over yet more
powers to allay short-term fears. 

Imposing restrictions on technologies that can be used to secure
messages will do little to combat terrorism, they say, but could
seriously erode personal privacy. 

Hidden messages

The FBI has revealed few details of how last week's attacks were
co-ordinated. 

But, even so, it is clear that far from being a sophisticated operation
using false identities, elaborate cover stories, uncrackable encryption
and the highest of technology, the hijack assault was an extremely low
tech mission. 

The hijackers used their own names, public web terminals, frequent flier
identifiers, and unencrypted e-mail messages to keep in touch. 

Conversations can be hidden in a crowd

"We are all focusing on this as a very hi-tech war, whereas the
terrorists are using very low-tech means," said Brian Gladman, former
technical director at Nato, and now an advisor to the net thinktank the
Foundation for Information Policy Research (Fipr). 

There were good reasons for keeping communications so simple, he said:
"There's so little encryption going across the net that any that is used
stands out like a sore thumb."

Reports suggest that the sophisticated technologies available to
intelligence agencies mean that those planning attacks tend to favour
low-key methods that are far harder to pick out and track.  Many groups
use messages passed by trusted messengers and word of mouth rather than
electronic networks. 

To avoid raising the suspicions of intelligence agencies, the groups are
thought to fix the meaning of seemingly innocuous messages long before
attacks take place.  A message such as "See you in New York on the 11th"
sounds innocent and its significance would only become apparent after
the event. 

Using porn

Before now, there has been speculation that Osama Bin Laden has hidden
messages in pornographic images posted and swapped on Usenet, eBay and
Amazon. 

However, after analysing over two million images from eBay, Niels Provos
and colleagues from the University of Michigan have said they found no
evidence of hidden messages.  Mr Provos and his colleagues are now
extending their work to check more images. 

There's so little encryption going across the net that any that is used
stands out like a sore thumb

Brian Gladman, Fipr Many net privacy groups and security experts fear
that last week's attacks could result in a slew of draconian laws and
regulations that erode online liberty and restrict the use of encryption
software that can protect messages. 

Bruce Schneier, cryptography expert and founder of the Counterpane
security consultancy, said banning encryption would do no good. 

"Attempting to control encryption will not keep it out of the hands of
the bad guys," he said. 

"Good encryption helps more than it hurts," he said.  "Any limitations
on the use of encryption will make us less secure, and not more."

Osama Bin Laden: Said to hide messages in pornographic images swapped on
the web

In the US, cyber-liberty groups, such as the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic),
have asked supporters to lobby politicians to stop them supporting the
hastily drafted Anti-Terrorism Act.  The EFF warned: "[The Act] would
dramatically alter the civil liberties landscape through unnecessarily
broad restrictions on free speech and privacy rights in the United
States and abroad."

Many fear that an emergency session of EU leaders to he held on 21
September could lead to calls for similar restrictive legislation across
European nations. 

The EFF said that law enforcement agencies such as the FBI already had
more than enough powers to tap communications and spy on citizens.  It
feared that extending these powers could mean routine surveillance of
huge numbers of people. 

"Everyone is outraged by the terrorist attacks, but that's no reason to
suddenly abrogate our rights," said EFF legal counsel Deborah Pierce. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JNm9_D/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:48 PDT