News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by KMag on Sunday March 29, 2015 @08:26AM (#9284605)
I agree in general, but in this specific case, Beijing can just demand access to Baidu's private keys and MITM all traffic passing through the GFWoC.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by rmc on Sunday March 29, 2015 @03:43PM (#9286196)
Chinese government already has a root CA in all browsers.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by KMag on Monday March 30, 2015 @06:49AM (#9288695)
> Chinese government* already has a root CA in all* * browsers.

* For definitions of "Chinese government" that includes the Beijing non-profit China Internet Network Information Center, which isn't technically part of the government, but presumably is easily pressured.

* * For definitions of "all browsers" that excludes some minority browsers and those browsers run by users who have disabled the CNNIC root cert.

I have no doubt that the Chinese government has access to the CCNIC root certificate private key if it so chooses, but demanding the private key for an existing domain certificate would provide slightly less traceability and slightly more deniability.

Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by im2w1l on Sunday March 29, 2015 @08:50AM (#9284640)
That would be the death of Baidu among the Chinese diaspora.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by Kiwikwi on Sunday March 29, 2015 @09:34AM (#9284755)
Buh? Encryption is de-facto illegal in China. To the extent SSL is used, you can be sure that the government already has a copy of the master key. I've worked on Chinese deployed train systems, and we were banned from encrypting train control signals (signing was allowed, though), just in case someone might try to sneak in a political message in an ATO control telegram...
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by im2w1l on Sunday March 29, 2015 @10:22AM (#9284896)
Not breaking encryption itself. Breaking encryption to serve malicious scripts.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by icebraining on Sunday March 29, 2015 @01:30PM (#9285655)
So breaking encryption is accepted; serving malicious scripts is accepted (it's what happened in this attack), but breaking encryption to serve malicious scripts would be out of limits? That doesn't make much sense.
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by im2w1l on Monday March 30, 2015 @04:20AM (#9288236)
Serving malicious scripts is very bad, and may not actually be accepted. I know I would hesitate to use baidu analytics after this. But people might come around if they say something about SSL and wont happen again.

If the encryption is then broken and it is done again, then a) it will prove that China did it. Because you can see who signed the certificate. b) it will prove that technical countermeasures are not enough, since the problem is deeper than that.

Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by Estragon on Sunday March 29, 2015 @08:49PM (#9287127)
Why is encrypting train control signals a good idea? What reasons were given for the ban?
Re:GitHub under ongoing DDoS attack by KMag on Monday March 30, 2015 @07:26AM (#9288794)
> Why is encrypting train control signals a good idea?

Because someone might like to mess with train signals, and in the off chance that some weakness is found in the MAC/signature scheme you're using, forcing an attacker to guess at which messages they're manipulating and how will make their attack more difficult.

If you're working with a networked application, even if it's on a non-public network, you should be asking yourself "why not encrypt?" instead of "why encrypt?". This is doubly true of critical infrastructure that's expensive and slow to replace.