IP: more on Correction sought (`Secrets concealed by software' London Times)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 10:39:50 +1100
> From: Nathan Cochrane <ncochrane () theage fairfax com au>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
> I don't know why Western intelligence services are getting so bent out of 
> shape about crypto. In the book "Body of Secrets", Bamford writes on p410:
>
> "According to information obtained for Body of Secrets, NSA regularly 
> listens to unencrypted calls from suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden, in 
> hiding in Afghanistan," Bamford writes.
>
> "Bin Laden uses a portable INMARSAT (satellite) phone that transmits and 
> receives calls over spacecraft owned by the International Maritime 
> Satellite Organisation.
>
> "According to intelligence officials, bin Laden is aware that the United 
> States can eavesdrop on his international communications but he does not 
> seem to care. To impress cleared visitors, NSA analysts occasionally play 
> audiotapes of bin Laden talking to his mother over an INMARSAT connection."
>
> http://it.mycareer.com.au/breaking/2001/09/13/FFXA3MZFJRC.html
>
> So not only does bin Laden know he is being listened to, if the author is 
> to be believed, he doesn't care. Until recently anyone could call bin 
> Laden on his satphone -- the number was on the public record having been 
> revealed in the court case over WTC Attack MkI. I guess he changed his 
> number because he was tired of telemarketers. Hard to plan a terrorist 
> outrage when you're being harassed every ten minutes by some infidel 
> trying to sell you a new magazine subscription, car or biotoxin.
>
> All the WTC MkII materials picked up and published to the public to date 
> show operatives who didn't even use code names for their ops. They listed 
> their plans in plain English, title, chapter and verse.
>
> You really have to question the motives of people who would use such a 
> tragedy to further a long-held political hobby horse.
>
> cheers
>
> Nathan
>
>
> David Farber wrote:
>
> > > From: Ross Anderson <Ross.Anderson () cl cam ac uk>
> > > To: letters () the-times co uk
> > > Cc: ukcrypto () chiark greenend org uk
> > > Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:23:58 +0100
> > > Subject: Correction sought
> > >
> > >
> > > The Editor,
> > > The Times,
> > > Dear Sir:
> > >
> > > In Friday's article, `Secrets concealed by software' [1], you quoted
> > > me as saying that rather than using steganography, it was `likely that
> > > they [al-Qaida] sent thousands of innocent messages along with their
> > > live orders, so that the secret information was missed.'
> > >
> > > Your claim is untrue. I did not say that.
> > >
> > > Your reporter called me and told me he had had a briefing from the
> > > security services that al-Qaida were using steganography, that is,
> > > hiding messages inside other objects such as MP3 files or images.  He
> > > asked me whether I thought this was plausible. I replied that although
> > > it was technically possible, it was unlikely; and that, according to
> > > the FBI, the hijackers had sent ordinary emails in English or Arabic.
> > > I explained that the main problem facing police communications
> > > intelligence is traffic selection - knowing which of the billions of
> > > emails to look at - rather than the possibility that the emails might
> > > be encrypted or otherwise camouflaged. A competent opponent is
> > > unlikely to draw attention to himself by being one of the few users of
> > > encryption or anonymity services.
> > >
> > > For just the same reason, he is unlikely to draw attention to himself
> > > be sending unreasonably large numbers of messages as cover traffic.
> > > Instead, he will hide his messages among the huge numbers of quite
> > > innocuous messages that are sent anyway. Throwaway email accounts with
> > > service providers such as hotmail are the natural way to do this.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the story that bin Laden hides his secret messages in
> > > pornographic images on the net appears to be too good for the tabloids
> > > to pass up. It appears to have arisen from work done by Niels Provos
> > > at the University of Michigan. In November last year, he wrote in a
> > > technical report that he could find no evidence that messages were
> > > being hidden in online images. By February this year, this had been
> > > been conflated by USA Today, an American popular paper, with an
> > > earlier FBI briefing on cryptography into a tale that terrorists could
> > > be using steganography to hide messages [2]. Similar material has
> > > surfaced in a number of the racier areas of the net [3], despite being
> > > criticised a number of times by more technically informed writers [4].
> > >
> > > It is unclear what national interest is served by security agencies
> > > propagating this lurid urban myth. Perhaps the goal is to manufacture
> > > an excuse for the failure to anticipate the events of November 11th.
> > > Perhaps it is preparaing the ground for an attempt at bureaucratic
> > > empire-building via Internet regulation, as a diversionary activity
> > > from the much harder and less pleasant task of going after al-Qaida.
> > > Perhaps the vision of bin Laden as cryptic pornographer is being spun
> > > to create a subconscious link, in the public mind, with the scare
> > > stories about child pornography that were used before September 11th
> > > to justify government plans for greater Internet regulation.
> > >
> > > Whatever the security services' motive, it is quite unclear to me why
> > > a `quality newspaper' should have run this story, even after its
> > > technical and operational implausibility were explained to you in
> > > detail (see also `Al-Qaeda hid coded messages on porn websites' [5]).
> > >
> > > Could you kindly publish this letter as a correction.
> > >
> > > Yours Faithfully
> > >
> > > Ross Anderson
> > > Reader in Security Engineering
> > > University of Cambridge
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001340010-2001345085,00.html
> > >
> > > [2] http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-02-05-binladen.htm
> > >
> > > [3] http://www.feedmag.com/templates/printer.php3?a_id=1624
> > >
> > > [4] http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41658,00.html
> > >
> > > [5] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001340010-2001345211,00.html
> >
> >
> > For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
> > .
>
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it may be legally privileged and 
> confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
> you must not disclose or use the information contained in it.  If you have 
> received this email in error, please notify us by return email and 
> permanently delete the document.
> *********************************************************************************



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/