Reply to the Times Article...FW text

From: Jim CULLINAN (J.CULLINAN@private)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 15:50:16 PDT

  • Next message: HORN Dan E: "Bin Laden use of Internet"

    Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:23:58 +0100
    From: Ross Anderson <Ross.Anderson@private>
    To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
    <ukcrypto.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
    
    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 September 11th.  Perhaps
    it is preparing 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
    
    ------------------------------------------
    Jim "SIXPOINTS" Cullinan
    Retired Police Officer, Current PSO-GDPS and Member IPA-US Section.      
    http://www.geocities.com/sixpointscop
    Remember, "y'all" is singular, "all y'all is plural, and "all y'all's is plural possessive.
    
    It's Nice to be Important.   It's More Important to be Nice.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun May 26 2002 - 11:27:01 PDT