Jump to content



Photo

How NSA access was built into Windows

nsa back door windows

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#31 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:52

Are you kidding me? NAT doesn't block incoming by choice, its just technically how it works. I could lecture you for a day about NAT translation tables if you want and all the different types of NAT. The fact of the matter is, NAT only allows incoming connections if they're initialised by the client on the end. There is P2P protocols etc, but then again, initialised by the client.

 

It wouldn't happen, and if it did, it'd get spotted very quickly.

 

So, what you're saying is... If a network is behind a NAT it's completely safe, and you're some sort of networking wiz kid :) Hardly the case...

 

Just some common vulnerabilities that are well known: http://security.stac...net-through-nat

 

Maybe the security portions of your education were written in parentheses, and you just happened to completely miss them, like my point above that you failed to acknowledge.




#32 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:10

So, what you're saying is... If a network is behind a NAT it's completely safe, and you're some sort of networking wiz kid :) Hardly the case...

 

Just some common vulnerabilities that are well known: http://security.stac...net-through-nat

 

Maybe the security portions of your education were written in parentheses, and you just happened to completely miss them, like my point above that you failed to acknowledge.

If you studied those attacks, then you'd realise they're all done by making your PC creating a connection out, leaving a port open for incoming traffic through the NAT. All attacks through NAT are done by sending a packet outbound first. I've also worked on the design and installation of CG-NAT for two different ISPs.

 

I've learnt most of my knowledge on the job rather at University. I don't want to sound arrogant but the levels of the curriculum on the course I'm on was far lower than what I already knew since I was already experienced in the work. I only kept studying due to the links with companies the University has. Hence why I have had the jobs I've had. Funnily enough though, our security lecturer was very experienced and was excellent at what he did. He was actually tasked in helping the Government with the hacking groups. Me and him often went through a lot of the topologies ISP's had and discussed security around them, that was fascinating. 



#33 nullie

nullie

    Neowinian

  • 822 posts
  • Joined: 04-June 03
  • Location: Springfield, OR

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:29

knowing the NSA this is exactly what it's used for; they have full ability to decrypt, and fake encryption as whom ever they want. this means any type of encryption, or password protection in Windows is futile. their master key gives them access to everything. passwords and encryption will not stop them from reading your encrypted or password protected data; furthermore, they can easily control your own keys, and probably more easily reverse engineer keys to allow them to pretend they're you, ie use the master NSA key to generate or gain access to your master certificates. that secure communication or signed data can now be signed by the NSA with your name, allowing them to pretend to someone else that they're you.

 

also, this might mean they could break into Windows both locally and remotely more easier. I am without a doubt, knowing how nefarious the NSA is, that this is going on. they probably run tricks on people, and the scope is quite large.

 

I am always saying. The NSA and US government only makes you think that you're in control or have any privacy at any given time. It's all fake and engineered. They always have full control over everything; they are warrantlessly monitoring and into everything. They do pretend to follow the laws on occasion, but not most of the time. They also have the Electronic Brain Link and Remote Neural Monitoring stuff. Full internet, telephone, and electronic communication, wired and wireless signals, bank, and other systems monitoring capability. It's just like the movies, they monitor everything. and it's not Sci-Fi. AI monitors everything for them, and they have control when they want it.

 

nsa.pdf @ http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/



#34 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:39

If you studied those attacks, then you'd realise they're all done by making your PC creating a connection out, leaving a port open for incoming traffic through the NAT. All attacks through NAT are done by sending a packet outbound first.

 

So you've used NAT to give all of these machines internet access, but they can't send any packets without exposing vulnerabilities. Brilliant. As I said, you really just don't know what you're talking about... I guess next you'll proclaim that firewalls can't be hacked.

 

While NAT does have a useful purpose, it is too often incorrectly regarded as a security feature. ITSS and ITCom do not recommend using NAT as a network protection mechanism.

 

Contrary to popular belief, NAT does not necessarily hide the identity of hosts behind it. Using passive analysis of TCP/IP and application-layer protocols, it's possible to gain very detailed information about the internal network. Subtleties in the TCP/IP stack allow anyone who can see external traffic to fingerprint the operating systems of internal hosts. Differences in initial TCP sequence numbers, IP options, and IP IDs are more than enough information to enumerate hosts on the internal network. NAT only superficially hides internal hosts.

 

Beyond gaining information about the operating systems in use behind the NAT device, a savvy attacker can also deduce the internal network architecture. Since NAT only operates at the IP level, an attacker could use low IP time-to-live values to solicit ICMP TTL Exceeded messages and gain detailed information about the internal routing infrastructure. Using these techniques, an attacker can gain almost as much information as if there was no NAT device.

 

The well-known security adage "security through obscurity is no security at all" is certainly applicable to NAT. IPv6, whose biggest initial win is a significant increase of address space, has no concept of NAT since no additional security is gained. In a significantly large network environment, NAT creates more problems than it solves. NAT multiplies the level of complexity to any network. With only one real benefit, it's difficult to justify the return on investment of deploying NAT. Consider the ramifications to the current and potential network architecture when evaluating NAT. 

 

http://safecomputing...at_security.pdf



#35 Praetor

Praetor

    ASCii / ANSi Designer

  • 3,115 posts
  • Joined: 05-June 02
  • Location: Lisbon
  • OS: Windows Eight dot One dot One 1!one

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:39

Don't forget process monitor and network firewalls, And what about all those people on slow wan links wouldn't they notice it ?

 why do you think the Internet is slow? It's The Man ® accessing your computer! you know, for the lulz...



#36 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 26 June 2013 - 10:42

So you've used NAT to give all of these machines internet access, but they can't send any packets without exposing vulnerabilities. Brilliant. As I said, you really just don't know what you're talking about... I guess next you'll proclaim that firewalls can't be hacked.

Of course you can find out information about the internal network. When a packet is sent through NAT, there's still a lot of information left in there. Doesn't mean you can talk to them.

 

That quote of over explained NAT troubleshooting just says that you can logically map the internal network of NAT. NAT was never designed to be a security feature, sorely just a mechanism to save public IP address space. Although with how it works, it provides some basic firewall functionality.

 

In that article does it not once explain how you can communicate with internal clients without an outbound connection first. I don't know what I'm talking about? It's my job, the one I'm currently sat at my desk for now. Also, the fact that I've rolled CG-NAT out nationally for two different ISPs. Ever looked into CG-NAT? On a national infrastructure scale, its a bit more complicated than your home gateways NAT.

 

I love the quote in bold at the end, regarding that it creates more problems than it solves. A large NAT implementation can be very efficient when done well, without it a large network wouldn't be able to access the internet.

 

To go back on topic, there would be no way for the NSA to access your computer without your machine sending an outbound packet first which is very unfeasible as a back-door mechanism. So like said, all this is conspiracy faf.



#37 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:25

Of course you can find out information about the internal network. When a packet is sent through NAT, there's still a lot of information left in there. Doesn't mean you can talk to them.

 

That quote of over explained NAT troubleshooting just says that you can logically map the internal network of NAT. NAT was never designed to be a security feature, sorely just a mechanism to save public IP address space. Although with how it works, it provides some basic firewall functionality.

 

In that article does it not once explain how you can communicate with internal clients without an outbound connection first. I don't know what I'm talking about? It's my job, the one I'm currently sat at my desk for now. Also, the fact that I've rolled CG-NAT out nationally for two different ISPs. Ever looked into CG-NAT? On a national infrastructure scale, its a bit more complicated than your home gateways NAT.

 

I love the quote in bold at the end, regarding that it creates more problems than it solves. A large NAT implementation can be very efficient when done well, without it a large network wouldn't be able to access the internet.

 

To go back on topic, there would be no way for the NSA to access your computer without your machine sending an outbound packet first which is very unfeasible as a back-door mechanism. So like said, all this is conspiracy faf.

 

The quote is over explained, and then isn't explanatory enough. Right...

 

So wrong yet so sure :) After this conversation I wouldn't let you setup my media player, let alone a simple home router.



#38 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:37

The quote is over explained, and then isn't explanatory enough. Right...

 

So wrong yet so sure :) After this conversation I wouldn't let you setup my media player, let alone a simple home router.

Rather than coming back with something educated, you try and belittle. Shows alot. I'm not even going to raise to your sentence at the end, its just childish.

 

There's just too many factors which make this conspiracy unrealistic and technically not possible.



#39 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:04

Rather than coming back with something educated, you try and belittle. Shows alot. I'm not even going to raise to your sentence at the end, its just childish.

 

You began with a childish and belittling comment. I figured it was fair game. At least I did provide facts backing up what I said. The same can't be said of you, and that indeed shows a lot.

 

To constantly be told you're wrong, have facts posted showing that you're wrong, yet still never have been able to counter with a fact of your own to back up your position, is truly uneducated and childish. You can say that you work where ever you want, and that you know whatever you want. The level of understanding you display in your assertions tells the truth of the story though.

 

I never said that this conspiracy was realistic, yet another of your many misunderstandings... Did you ever go back and read between the parentheses, or are you just too childish to admit when you're wrong?



#40 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:13

You began with a childish and belittling comment. I figured it was fair game. At least I did provide facts backing up what I said. The same can't be said of you.

 

To constantly be told you're wrong, have facts posted showing that you're wrong, yet still never have been able to counter with a fact of your own to back up your position, is truly uneducated and childish. You can say that you work where ever you want, and that you know whatever you want. The level of understanding you display in your assertions tells the truth of the story though.

 

I never said that this conspiracy was realistic, yet another of your many misunderstandings... Did you ever go back and read between the parentheses, or are you just too childish to admit when you're wrong?

What? You pulled down one quote which was totally not even on topic to the discussion we was having on NAT.

 

Hang on, correcting you is childish? I have CCNA, CCNP, JCNA accreditations, its my profession, how can I make that anymore clear? Just to brag, I actually got high enough marks in those to become a lecturer/teacher of the accreditation. Do you ask University lecturers to always back their quotes up? I have a technical understanding on this subject. The quote you posted was wrote by a person, so why does that one person automatically gain your trust? Just because its on a website? 

 

Cause I read the parentheses, or I would of never quoted you in the first place. 

 

What am I wrong in exactly? List it very clear, because I honestly don't see it.



#41 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 13:23

What? You pulled down one quote which was totally not even on topic to the discussion we was having on NAT.

 

Hang on, correcting you is childish? I have CCNA, CCNP, JCNA accreditations, its my profession, how can I make that anymore clear? Just to brag, I actually got high enough marks in those to become a lecturer/teacher of the accreditation. Do you ask University lecturers to always back their quotes up? I have a technical understanding on this subject. The quote you posted was wrote by a person, so why does that one person automatically gain your trust? Just because its on a website? 

 

Cause I read the parentheses, or I would of never quoted you in the first place. 

 

What am I wrong in exactly? List it very clear, because I honestly don't see it.

 

So... still no facts. You do have the grammar of a University Lecturer :)

 

 

Hows the tin foil hat?

 

Nice correction... Very mature and educated. You interjected a wise thought there, just like I'd expect from a University Lecturer with such high accolades and accomplishments :)

 

 

Oh my gosh, you're so paranoid. How's the tin foil flack jacket? (That game can be played both ways. Don't dismiss what I said as if I'm paranoid. I was just stating what is possible, as you just did).

 

 

I'm paranoid? You do realise that the possible threat was confirmed by the GCHQ when the project got announced right? So when you try and discuss a topic, understand it before you make remarks.

 

My point here, which I called attention to in multiple subsequent posts, and which I stated unambiguously, was not that I seriously thought you were paranoid, or that a threat to the Olympics was unfounded. I was pointing out through irony and sarcasm, and through a literal explanation (in parentheses), that you had completely misunderstood my post and deemed me a tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist with no basis. Instead of understanding before you made remarks however, you tried to discuss a topic. Twice. You should take your own advice.

 

1 quote, by 1 person, from just a website. Wrong, again. I posted a quote and a link, and not from obscure or questionable sources.

 

The topic was the viability of NAT as used for network security, and each was specifically and only about NAT security, wrong again.

 

The first was from stackexchange, which is very reputable, plus gave links to other information sources from more people on the page, as well as was reviewed, questioned, and explained more thoroughly by many contributors, who voted correct answers up. It's not a person, it's a community of knowledgeable participants.

 

The second was from the security department at the University of Michigan. It was a detailed security summary of NAT by the department.

 

Yes, I trust the community of stackexchange and the IT security department of the University of Michigan. Especially over some guy in a forum with a guitar for his picture instead of his real face.

 

I don't want to sound arrogant

 

I don't think you can help it... As I said, you can say you work anywhere you want, and that you've got whatever accolades you wish.

 

I worked as a butler for Queen Elizabeth, and ran the NSA and GCHQ, and taught IT security as a professor at MIT all at the same time when I was 13. A firewall is absolute security that can't be hacked by anyone. What, you say I'm wrong, but just believe me because I told you that I know what I'm talking about. (That's sarcasm by the way, it seems that you need that explained. Probably won't do any good though).

 

That you can't be bothered to back up your own nonsense with facts is because you are arrogant, and none exist to back you up. A NAT can be hacked, and is not the end all be all of network security.

 

You know, what really makes me question your validity is that you can't even have a simple conversation without so many errors, misunderstandings, and wild assertions. This conversation is in writing too. That should make it easier. I can't imagine what it would've been like verbally.

 

It's funny you mock the idea of taking some person's word on some website and trusting it, yet that's exactly what you're asking to be done for you with all of your "bragging" as you put it.



#42 JonnyLH

JonnyLH

    I say things.

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • Location: UK
  • OS: W8, W7, WP8, iOS, Ubuntu
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 26 June 2013 - 13:37

So... still no facts. You do have the grammar of a University Lecturer :)

 

 

 

Nice correction... Very mature and educated. You interjected a wise thought there, just like I'd expect from a University Lecturer with such high accolades and accomplishments :)

 

 

 

 

 

My point here, which I called attention to in multiple subsequent posts, and which I stated unambiguously, was not that I seriously thought you were paranoid, or that a threat to the Olympics was unfounded. I was pointing out through irony and sarcasm, and through a literal explanation (in parentheses), that you had completely misunderstood my post and deemed me a tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorist with no basis. Instead of understanding before you made remarks however, you tried to discuss a topic. Twice. You should take your own advice.

 

1 quote, by 1 person, from just a website. Wrong, again. I posted a quote and a link, and not from obscure or questionable sources.

 

The topic was the viability of NAT as used for network security, and each was specifically and only about NAT security, wrong again.

 

The first was from stackexchange, which is very reputable, plus gave links to other information sources from more people on the page, as well as was reviewed, questioned, and explained more thoroughly by many contributors, who voted correct answers up. It's not a person, it's a community of knowledgeable participants.

 

The second was from the security department at the University of Michigan. It was detailed security summary of NAT by the department.

 

Yes, I trust the community of stackexchange and the IT security department of the University of Michigan. Especially over some guy in a forum with a guitar for his picture instead of his real face.

 

 

I don't think you can help it... As I said, you can say you work anywhere you want, and that you've got whatever accolades you wish.

 

I worked as a butler for Queen Elizabeth, and ran the NSA and GCHQ, and taught IT security as a professor at MIT all at the same time when I was 13. A firewall is absolute security that can't be hacked by anyone. What, you say I'm wrong, but just believe me because I told you that I know what I'm talking about. (That's sarcasm by the way, it seems that you need that explained. Probably won't do any good though).

 

That you can't be bothered to back up your own nonsense with facts is because you are arrogant, and none exist to back you up. A NAT can be hacked, and is not the end all be all of network security.

 

You know, what really makes me question your validity is that you can't even have a simple conversation without so many errors, misunderstandings, and wild assertions. This conversation is in writing too. That should make it easier. I can't imagine what it would've been like verbally.

 

It's funny you mock the idea of taking some person's word on some website and trusting it, yet that's exactly what you're asking to be done for you with all of your "bragging" as you put it.

You still haven't mentioned technically how I'm wrong. I don't give a toss about the structure of the argument. 

 

The matter of the fact is, you still haven't laid down the evidence disproving what I've said. I'm not on about NAT as a security mechanism, I'm on about how it disproves the conspiracy in the OP. Your evidence proves my point not yours. All the evidence and hacking techniques to poke someone through a NAT works on creating an outbound connection first, there's no doubt about that. YOUR sources back me up.

 

I've played guitar throughout my life and that's a picture of my guitar, problem? Tell that to the majority of members on here.

 

Also, if you're referring to my grammar being awful, I know. Literature has never been my strong point. In addition, I'm from Yorkshire in the UK, so you'll probably detest the way I would put the point across.



#43 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 26 June 2013 - 13:43

I love this, so the NSA came up with all these security problems yet one guy in the UK managed to get into all the NASA computers? XD!
OK so the NSA and NASA aren't linked but you'd think they'd have some security in place to stop years of R&D and billions of $ getting nicked.



#44 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 26 June 2013 - 13:47

 

It's pretty obvious that Windows has had a back door for use by government organisations, i wouldn't be surprised if MacOSX had it too. Oh course they are not going to be using it all the time, however i can imagine some kind of remote execution ability. Linux and Open source in general i would be more surprised about as it would be a lot easier to discover this through open source.

 

No wonder they hate open source so much. :D



#45 thomastmc

thomastmc

    Unofficial Attorney of Neowin

  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Kansas City
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: Lumia 928

Posted 26 June 2013 - 13:54

You still haven't mentioned technically how I'm wrong. I don't give a toss about the structure of the argument. 

 

The matter of the fact is, you still haven't laid down the evidence disproving what I've said. I'm not on about NAT as a security mechanism, I'm on about how it disproves the conspiracy in the OP.

 

So you're not on about NAT as a security mechanism... That's so disingenuous. Especially since you're now claiming that it's in relation to a cryptographic backdoor as described in OP. Laughable.

 

To protect National Security? Do you condone events like Boston or a possible terrorist threat on the Olympics? 

 

The people which create these programs are normal people, they're doing it to protect national security not to see what porn people are watching. If there was a backdoor to any software system, it would of been found by now. You'd be able to spot it a mile off. Another point is, who's computer here actually has a public IP address? If not, you're sitting behind a NAT which will not let any un-prompted connections incoming unless the client initialized it. So a backdoor wouldn't even work in todays Internet.

 

So once again, hows the tinfoil hat?

 

 

Are you kidding me? NAT doesn't block incoming by choice, its just technically how it works. I could lecture you for a day about NAT translation tables if you want and all the different types of NAT. The fact of the matter is, NAT only allows incoming connections if they're initialised by the client on the end. There is P2P protocols etc, but then again, initialised by the client.

 

It wouldn't happen, and if it did, it'd get spotted very quickly.

 

 

If you studied those attacks, then you'd realise they're all done by making your PC creating a connection out, leaving a port open for incoming traffic through the NAT. All attacks through NAT are done by sending a packet outbound first. I've also worked on the design and installation of CG-NAT for two different ISPs.

 

I've learnt most of my knowledge on the job rather at University. I don't want to sound arrogant but the levels of the curriculum on the course I'm on was far lower than what I already knew since I was already experienced in the work. I only kept studying due to the links with companies the University has. Hence why I have had the jobs I've had. Funnily enough though, our security lecturer was very experienced and was excellent at what he did. He was actually tasked in helping the Government with the hacking groups. Me and him often went through a lot of the topologies ISP's had and discussed security around them, that was fascinating. 

 

You have not laid down any technical evidence of why you're correct, or evidence that calls that quote or link into question. All you've done is brag and say trust me.