France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU.
-
Basically, all encryption multiplies some big prime numbers to get the key
No, not all encryption. First of all there's two main categories of encryption:
- asymmetrical
- symmetrical
The most widely used algorithms of asymmetrical encryption rely on the prime factorization problem or similar problems that are weak to quantum computers. So these ones will break. Symmetrical encryption will not break. I'm not saying all this to be a pedant; it's actually significant for the safety of our current communications. Well-designed schemes like TLS and the Signal protocol use a combination of both types because they have complementary strengths and weaknesses. In very broad strokes:
- asymmetrical encryption is used to initiate the communication because it can verify the identity of the other party
- an algorithm that is safe against eavesdropping is used to generate a key for symmetric encryption
- the symmetric key is used to encrypt the payload and it is thrown away after communication is over
This is crucial because it means that even if someone is storing your messages today to decrypt them in the future with a quantum computer they are unlikely to succeed if a sufficiently strong symmetric key is used. They will decrypt the initial messages of the handshake, see the messages used to negotiate the symmetric key, but they won't be able to derive the key because as we said, it's safe against eavesdropping.
So a lot of today's encrypted messages are safe. But in the future a quantum computer will be able to get the private key for the asymmetric encryption and perform a MitM attack or straight-up impersonate another entity. So we have to migrate to post-quantum algorithms before we get to that point.
For storage, only symmetric algorithms are used generally I believe, so that's already safe as is, assuming as always the choice of a strong algorithm and sufficiently long key.
That's a comment I was hoping for, thanks
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564
Correction. The worst surveillance law in the EU so far
-
Signal, Tuta, Proton. And that Apple bullshit.
This push to know everything about everyone is outrageous, expected, and depressing.
I don't even really want to ask, but... what happened with Tuta? I know what happened with the other 3.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564
a crosspost from privacy cross posted from Europa -
I don't even really want to ask, but... what happened with Tuta? I know what happened with the other 3.
Tuta would also be required to implement a backdoor in their encryption if this law passes. In this post they've stated they will refuse to do so, because it's not possible.
-
Huh? I don't think you understand my comment. You're just agreeing with me and I'm already agreeing with you.
I don't agree with you.
-
I don't agree with you.
So then you're in favor of these government backdoors? Because your comment suggests the opposite.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564
Ah yes, for the upcoming Ministry of Love.
-
I don't agree with you.
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
-
Signal, Tuta, Proton. And that Apple bullshit.
This push to know everything about everyone is outrageous, expected, and depressing.
What happened with Signal?
-
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
Nope. I didn't and I don't.
-
So then you're in favor of these government backdoors? Because your comment suggests the opposite.
No, I don't agree that a want of privacy is an American thing.
-
No, I don't agree that a want of privacy is an American thing.
So you misread my comment but you're one of those types who can't admit when they're wrong. I'd say it's our little secret but I see someone else pointed it out too.
-
Yup, they are trying to put a backdoor into signal, even though their military advised against it.
Isn't that the CIA app?
-
So you misread my comment but you're one of those types who can't admit when they're wrong. I'd say it's our little secret but I see someone else pointed it out too.
Nope. You're the one refusing to admit being wrong.
-
Nope. I didn't and I don't.
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens doesn't make any sense. Either you don't know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you're a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564
But they're not the good guys either
-
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens doesn't make any sense. Either you don't know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you're a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
I'm telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it's not, and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
-
I'm telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it's not, and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
I'm telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it's not
But their comment doesn't say or suggest that.
and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
And they don't say anything about the compromises except that they'd be used for spying on citizenry.
This isn't my fight, I saw you were confused and thought I'd help. My mistake, you really are one of those double down or die types.
-
What happened with Signal?
Sweden wants a backdoor. I hope that idiocy is shot down fast.
