{"id":192258,"date":"2017-05-11T12:32:28","date_gmt":"2017-05-11T16:32:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/_nsakey-wikipedia\/"},"modified":"2017-05-11T12:32:28","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T16:32:28","slug":"_nsakey-wikipedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/nsa-2\/_nsakey-wikipedia\/","title":{"rendered":"_NSAKEY &#8211; Wikipedia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    In computer security and cryptography,    _NSAKEY was a variable name discovered in    Windows NT 4 Service Pack 5 (which had been released    unstripped of its symbolic debugging data) in August 1999 by    Andrew D. Fernandes of Cryptonym Corporation. That variable    contained a 1024-bit public key.  <\/p>\n<p>    Microsoft's    operating systems require all cryptography    suites that work with its operating systems to have a digital    signature. Since only Microsoft-approved cryptography    suites can be installed or used as a component of Windows, it    is possible to keep export copies of this operating system (and    products with Windows installed) in compliance with the    Export Administration    Regulations (EAR), which are enforced by the US Department of Commerce    Bureau of Industry and    Security (BIS).  <\/p>\n<p>    It was already known that Microsoft used two keys, a primary    and a spare, either of which can create valid signatures.    Microsoft had failed to remove the debugging symbols in    ADVAPI32.DLL, a security and encryption driver, when it    released Service Pack 5 for Windows NT 4.0, and Andrew    Fernandes, chief scientist with Cryptonym, found the primary    key stored in the variable _KEY and the second key was labeled    _NSAKEY.[1]    Fernandes published his discovery, touching off a flurry of    speculation and conspiracy theories, including the    possibility that the second key was owned by the United States    National Security Agency (the    NSA) and allowed the intelligence agency to subvert any Windows    user's security.[2]  <\/p>\n<p>    During a presentation at the Computers, Freedom    and Privacy 2000 (CFP2000) conference, Duncan    Campbell, senior research fellow at the Electronic Privacy    Information Center (EPIC), mentioned the _NSAKEY    controversy as an example of an outstanding issue related to    security and surveillance.[citation    needed]  <\/p>\n<p>    In addition, Dr. Nicko van Someren found a third key in Windows    2000, which he doubted had a legitimate purpose, and declared    that \"It looks more fishy\".[3]  <\/p>\n<p>    Microsoft denied the speculations on _NSAKEY. \"This report is    inaccurate and unfounded. The key in question is a Microsoft    key. It is maintained and safeguarded by Microsoft, and we have    not shared this key with the NSA or any other party.\"[4] Microsoft said that the key's    symbol was \"_NSAKEY\" because the NSA is the technical review    authority for U.S. export controls, and the key ensures    compliance with U.S. export laws.[5]  <\/p>\n<p>    Richard Purcell, Microsofts Director of Corporate Privacy,    approached Campbell after his presentation and expressed a wish    to clear up the confusion and doubts about _NSAKEY. Immediately    after the conference, Scott Culp, of the Microsoft Security    Response Center, contacted Campbell and offered to answer his    questions. Their correspondence began cordially but soon became    strained; Campbell apparently felt Culp was being evasive and    Culp apparently felt that Campbell was hostilely repeating    questions that he had already answered. On 28 April 2000, Culp    stated that \"we have definitely reached the end of this    discussion ... [which] is rapidly spiraling into the realm of    conspiracy theory\"[6] and Campbell's    further inquiries went unanswered.  <\/p>\n<p>    As for the third key, Microsoft claimed it was only in beta    builds of Windows 2000 and that its purpose was for signing    Cryptographic Service    Providers.[5]  <\/p>\n<p>    Some in the software industry question whether the BXA's EAR    has specific requirements for backup keys.[citation    needed] However, none claim the legal or    technical expertise necessary to authoritatively discuss that    document. The following theories have been presented.  <\/p>\n<p>    Microsoft stated that the second key is present as a backup to    guard against the possibility of losing the primary secret key.    Fernandes doubts this explanation, pointing out that the    generally accepted way to guard against loss of a secret key is    secret splitting, which would divide the    key into several different parts, which would then be    distributed throughout senior management.[7] He    stated that this would be far more robust than using two keys;    if the second key is also lost, Microsoft would need to patch    or upgrade every copy of Windows in the world, as well as every    cryptographic module it had ever signed.  <\/p>\n<p>    On the other hand, if Microsoft failed to think about the    consequences of key loss and created a first key without using    secret splitting (and did so in secure    hardware which doesn't allow protection to be weakened after    key generation), and the NSA pointed out this problem as    part of the review process, it might explain why Microsoft    weakened their scheme with a second key and why the new one was    called _NSAKEY. (The second key might be backed up using    secret splitting, so losing both keys    needn't be a problem.)  <\/p>\n<p>    A second possibility is that Microsoft included a second key to    be able to sign cryptographic modules outside the United    States, while still complying with the BXA's EAR. If    cryptographic modules were to be signed in multiple locations,    using multiple keys is a reasonable approach. However, no    cryptographic module has ever been found to be signed by    _NSAKEY, and Microsoft denies that any other certification    authority exists.  <\/p>\n<p>    Microsoft denied that the NSA has access to the _NSAKEY secret    key.[8]  <\/p>\n<p>    It was possible to remove the second _NSAKEY using the    following (note this was for Windows software in 1999).  <\/p>\n<p>      There is good news among the bad, however. It turns out that      there is a flaw in the way the \"crypto_verify\" function is      implemented. Because of the way the crypto verification      occurs, users can easily eliminate or replace the NSA key      from the operating system without modifying any of      Microsoft's original components. Since the NSA key is easily      replaced, it means that non-US companies are free to install      \"strong\" crypto services into Windows, without Microsoft's or      the NSA's approval. Thus the NSA has effectively removed      export control of \"strong\" crypto from Windows. A      demonstration program that replaces the NSA key can be found      on Cryptonym's website.[1]    <\/p>\n<p>    In September 1999, Legion2000 reverse-engineered both the    primary key and the _NSAKEY into PGP-compatible format and published    them to the key servers.[9]  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/NSAKEY\" title=\"_NSAKEY - Wikipedia\">_NSAKEY - Wikipedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> In computer security and cryptography, _NSAKEY was a variable name discovered in Windows NT 4 Service Pack 5 (which had been released unstripped of its symbolic debugging data) in August 1999 by Andrew D. Fernandes of Cryptonym Corporation. That variable contained a 1024-bit public key <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/nsa-2\/_nsakey-wikipedia\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94881],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nsa-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192258"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}