This Blog




AlertBoot offers a cloud-based full disk encryption and mobile device security service for companies of any size who want a scalable and easy-to-deploy solution. Centrally managed through a web based console, AlertBoot offers mobile device management, mobile antivirus, remote wipe & lock, device auditing, USB drive and hard disk encryption managed services.


AlertBoot Endpoint Security

AlertBoot offers a cloud-based full disk encryption and mobile device security service for companies of any size who want a scalable and easy-to-deploy solution. Centrally managed through a web based console, AlertBoot offers mobile device management, mobile antivirus, remote wipe & lock, device auditing, USB drive and hard disk encryption managed services.

December 2016 - Posts

  • US Government Committee Concludes (Yet Again) That Encryption Backdoors Undesirable

    As the year draws to a close – and what a year! – we finally have some good, sensible news: the US government has found that "any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest," and so encryption backdoors are an untenable scenario. This should be the final and decisive nail to the coffin of an issue that brought encryption and encryption backdoors to the forefront of public consciousness in the US and the world.  

    Apple v. FBI

    Each year has its milestones but 2016 feels like it has had more than its fair share. Brexit; Trump as president-elect; a European Union that's showing signs of becoming fractured; Volkswagen and most of the car industry caught with its pants down; South Korea embroiled in scandal after a Rasputinesque figure is yanked from the shadows; US elections possibly influenced by outside influences; US elections influenced by a federal agency; the biggest data breach in history; the Panama papers… the list really does go on in the year of the Red Monkey.

    And in that list is an FBI that in essence asked Apple to create a backdoor of sorts to the iPhone's encryption, a consequence of the San Bernardino shooting in February 2016.

    The federal agency insists that they weren't asking for a backdoor but they, in fact, were. It was the encryption equivalent of "sorry not sorry." While the FBI ultimately backed off the case did trigger something else: the Encryption Working Group (EWG), a congressional investigation into the viability of encryption backdoors that was composed of both Democrats and Republicans.  

    The Encryption Working Group Conclusions

    1. Any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest.
    2. Encryption technology is a global technology that is widely and increasingly available around the world.
    3. The variety of stakeholders, technologies, and other factors create different and divergent challenges with respect to encryption and the "going dark" phenomenon, and therefore there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the encryption challenge.
    4. Congress should foster cooperation between the law enforcement community and technology companies.

    The EWG found that strong encryption is vital to national interest in many ways – be it personal freedom or ensuring national defense or protecting infrastructure; the use of encryption is varied and widespread – and so anything that works to weaken encryption is a bad idea. Law enforcement's concerns regarding encryption are valid but an approach other than backdoors must be established.

    A solution may possibly lie in more cooperation between private industry and government, which is already present and established but could be furthered. Apple, for example, already provides law enforcement with data saved to the cloud. (In a case of cynically comical footinmouthitis, some in law enforcement used this cooperation as proof of Apple's "hypocrisy" regarding encryption.)

    The EWG noted that the FBI's approach request for a backdoor (or whatever it was they wanted to call it at the moment) was the wrong one since the use and provision of encryption is global and open source. Nothing would prevent "bad actors" from using encryption that is not crippled with backdoors. Any advantages the government receives from backdoors would be short-sighted and short-term.

    Aside from the above, the EWG also looked into whether "legal hacking" and compelled disclosure by individuals should be given more priority (working within a legal framework, of course).  

    Play Those Encryption Wars Again, Sam

    Of course, none of this is new. When the original "encryption wars" was "fought" in the 1990s, the issues and resulting conclusions were essentially the same. If anything, today's environment shows how prescient those conclusions from 20 years ago were. And, the issues debated back then haven't been supplanted by others in the interim. You know why that is?

    It's because the issues being debated were fundamental in nature, and now with plenty of supporting proof. Not that that's ever stopped anyone from challenging an issue.  


    Related Articles and Sites:

  • iPhone Encryption: FL Appeals Judge Says "OK" to Compel Password

    A new iPhone encryption case is making the headlines. Unlike many of the controversial ones to date, I think it can safely be said that in this case, the courts were right in compelling the suspect to unlock his smartphone.  

    Up-Skirt Videos

    A voyeur – we'll call him John Doe, although his name was revealed by the media – was caught using his iPhone to film up-skirt footage of a woman at a mall. He ran when confronted but the police were able to track him down using security footage.

    Doe initially agreed to a search of his smartphone but reneged at the last moment. A warrant was procured and granted for the phone, but Doe, one assumes, wouldn't cooperate when it came to accessing its contents. Doe, of course, is claiming his Fifth Amendment privileges.

    After legal haranguing, a Florida appellate court judge ruled that Doe must unlock his phone.  

    Only Protected When It's Testimonial

    The thing about the Fifth Amendment is that it's not legally ironclad, as I wrote back in 2012 regarding the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on decrypting hard drives and violating the Fifth. In that case, the court ruled that it was a Fifth Amendment violation; however, in a couple of other similar cases, the opposite was concluded.

    I said that they all made sense in a non-contradictory manner. Why? Because of what's known as foregone conclusion. Remember, the Fifth Amendment was designed to prevent "fishing expeditions" which has been described as:

    [a] method of putting the accused upon his oath and compelling him to answer questions designed to uncover uncharged offenses, without evidence from another source.
    This, in essence, is why compelling testimony against a person is unconstitutional: you arrest a guy for no reason, go through his personal life to see what charges you can stick on him (the "fishing") – if you can't find anything, then torture him so he'll confess under oath to something, either true or made up – and then jail him based on that. The Fifth exists to prevent things like this (the Brits used to do this a lot, so that's why its prohibition is enshrined in the US Constitution).

    But what if it's not a fishing expedition? What if the government is (to extend the theme) "spearing a whale," i.e., aiming for something that they know exists or happened? Well, it's different then.

    Because the government is not looking to find new evidence, or forcing a defendant to present new evidence that the government didn't know about, there is no violation of the Fifth. It's the difference between,

    "Who did you kill and where did you stash the corpse?"
    "Where is Mary's body? We have video footage of you putting it in your car's trunk and driving outside the city."

    In the latter case, it's a foregone conclusion that you know where Mary's body is, and the government can prove it. Revealing what happened to Mary's body, and where it is, is not testimonial. You can claim the Fifth and not cooperate, but you won't get the actual legal protection (probably). On the other hand, forcing a suspect to do the same under the former is definitely testimonial.

    That there are grey tones to the Fifth makes instinctual sense: If you're served with a warrant to examine the inside of your house, your don't claim the Fifth and stop the authorities from crossing the threshold. The law is legally allowed inside whether you like it or not.

    Same goes for the blood samples, handwriting samples, DNA samples, voice recordings, or standing in a line up. All of these acts work against a guy and claiming the Fifth doesn't do squat.  

    What About the Contents of the Mind?

    You might be thinking, well, that's all well and good but wasn't there a legal maxim that you can be forced to turn over the keys to a strong box's lock but never if it's a combination lock where the "keys" don't exist? And isn't the iPhone's four-digit code more like a combo lock?

    And the answer is "yes." As it turns out, though, all of that was part of a dissenting opinion (8 to 1, no less), so it's not precedent. Nevertheless, the judge in the voyeur's case made reference to it, and wondered whether differentiating between the two even makes sense, especially in this day and age.

    But even if it did, foregone conclusion applies to things like passwords as well. In one case, a man crossed into the US with a laptop that contained kiddie porn. The border agent saw it and the guy was arrested. The laptop's encryption, however, kicked in afterwards. The man was ordered to decrypt the laptop by a court. Why? The government already knew that it was there. No fishing necessary.

    In another case, a woman was recorded as saying that her laptop, which was already taken in as physical evidence, contained files that she didn't want the prosecutors to see. She also was ordered to decrypt her laptop. Why? The government already knew that it was there.

    There have been many other instances where "things in one's mind" have been compelled to be produced by a court. It ultimately seems to come down to: is the government fishing for evidence or not?

    In the voyeur's case, it appears that foregone conclusion kicks in. The cops have identified him and tracked him down. There is a witness (the woman who was wearing the skirt and confronted him). He ran when confronted. There is, apparently, footage of him at the mall (which explains how he was tracked down). A warrant was issued based on all of this. He pretty much all but admitted that the phone is his. And, as the judge noted, providing the PIN isn't testimonial – that is, it doesn't create new evidence nor would it be taken as admission of guilt.

    There is very little wiggle room for John Doe here.  

    Still, Problematic

    The situation is not without problems, however. What if Doe doesn't remember his PIN? Then he'll be found in contempt of the court for something he's truly unable to do. And that has to be just as bad as putting some guy in jail on trumped up charges.    


    Related Articles and Sites:

  • Laptop Encryption: Chesapeake Public Schools Laptop Theft Affects Over 10,000 Employees

    According to a couple of sources, Chesapeake Public Schools in Virginia is notifying employees about a potential data breach. Per their announcement, nearly 11,000 people could be affected by the theft of a laptop computer. It appears that laptop encryption software was not used to protect the contents. Password protection, however, was used.
    Assuming that the thieves (or thief) manage to work past the password protection, they will have access to names, Social Security numbers, and bank account numbers for past and present employees of CPS.  

    Password Protection: Useless

    This is one of those data breach stories that doesn't get too much coverage nowadays – either because the theft of unencrypted laptops doesn't happen too often (relatively speaking) or because it gets buried by much more sensational breaches, such as Yahoo's admission earlier this year that hundreds of millions of accounts were hacked a couple of years ago.
    I would like to imagine the dearth of such stories on the former reason. After all, it's been a while since the alarm has been raised regarding the lack of encryption on laptops that store sensitive data; this blog alone has spent 10 years on it, as have other sites including news outlets. It would be nice to know that ten or more years is enough time for information to diffuse throughout society and become general knowledge. You know, to become what they refer to as "common sense." (And if the controversy revolving around the FBI and iPhones is any indication, it has become common sense).
    Here's a factoid that hasn't reached such status: password protection is anything but. Just a simple online search will provide more than a handful of ways for overcoming or bypassing password protection on computers running the Windows operating system.
    And if the thieves manage to do it on the CPS laptop… well, it's not going to be pretty.  

    Tax Season is Upon Us

    What could a thief do with names, SSNs, and bank account info for 10,000-plus people? How much damage could he cause? Plenty.

    One of the ways that the above info gets used around this time of the year is in the IRS tax refund scam. Since nobody likes to file their taxes early, and most will wait until April is near, enterprising criminals have beaten real people to the punch by filing fake tax returns, routing the IRS checks to addresses they control (such as postal mail boxes) and cashing them.

    The IRS does what it can to prevent checks from being sent to scammers, but ultimately, they can't know for sure that a fraudulent tax return was filed unless the actual SSN holder (or his/her accountant) calls to complain – which, again, tends to happen closer towards April.

    Indeed, this could be one big reason why there are no signs of the data being misused so far. It's just a little too soon to do anything with it.  


    Related Articles and Sites: