Hacker News Reader

Comment by cm2187 | Hacker News Reader

I am not sure how this would be a precedent. People have already gone to jail in the UK under this law [1]

I wonder if "I don't remember it" is a defense against this law. How can a court send someone to jail for not remembering a password?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...

View on HN

One lesser-known fact about laptop hard drive encryption (the kind that's built in to the SATA firmware) is that the passphrase used to encrypt the disk is often not the passphrase that you type in to the BIOS. On Lenovo laptops, for example, the passphrase is generated by a complex calculation that was only known to Lenovo until someone reverse-engineered it: https://jbeekman.nl/blog/2015/03/lenovo-thinkpad-hdd-passwor...

If you remove the disk from the laptop (perhaps because the laptop breaks) you are unable to decrypt it (or remove the encryption key to reuse it as a blank disk, for that matter) unless you can reproduce not just the passphrase that you type in, but also the algorithm that the BIOS used to set the password on the disk. If you no longer have the laptop that you originally used to encrypt the disk then it's going to be difficult to decrypt the disk even if you do know the password.

Imagine the conversation:

"What's the encryption password for this disk?"

"'changeme'"

"Hmm. That doesn't seem to work with hdparm..."

"Well, that's what I typed into the laptop to unlock the disk, but it may not be what the laptop sends to the disk. I have no knowledge of the algorithm that <laptop supplier> uses, and no longer have the original laptop."

"Ok. Wait there while we talk to the laptop supplier."

Security by obscurity, it's useless. It must be some kind of known key derivation function. If it's something home-grown then actually that's much worse as I doubt Lenovo employs world-class cryptographers who can design something better than e.g. bcrypt or scrypt.

I don't buy that. For stuff like key derivation, there are loads of ways you could vary the process without compromising security.

For example, a normal disc encryption system with the caveat that the password is XORed with a secret before the key derivation algorithm is used (where the secret is unique to the exact laptop model) would effectively stop all decryption in its tracks until you knew the exact laptop model, but would not compromise security at all.

Where are you suggesting to keep the "secret" (to be XORed with)? It must be stored somewhere in the firmware or on the disk, right? Then I'm afraid it's not a secret, it's just a second salt (which KDF functions already have one) and can be easily read. I just don't see the point.

The point is if you no longer have the laptop and hadn't previously extracted the "second salt", thus out of luck

And you are probably unaware of why your password doesn't work.

Were you aware of this issue before GP posted ? I wasn't.

There would be lists of per-model salts shared online in days.

It could be a per-device salt.

And it could be stored in a tamper-proof chip on the device itself...

It's useless if the only method. If it slows down potential attack then it's just as effective as, say, multiple encryption cycles.

I have a password with multiple special characters and no dictionary word which I type on my laptop everyday and yet I genuinely don't remember it. It's called muscle memory[1].

I haven't tried it, but I guess there are all the chances that I will "forget" the password after a couple of weeks once I'm not typing it daily.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory

That's ok, they'll give you a keyboard.

I can, eventually and with many attempts, sit down in front of a keyboard and type out passwords that I last used regularly twenty years ago. Don't sell your muscle memory short. If it's a password that you are typing in multiple times per day you aren't going to forget it in just a few weeks.

More than once I have forgotten the pattern to unlock my phone. The very pattern I draw on the screen more than a dozen times a day. I usually remember it after a few hours without thinking about it, but sometimes I just can't recall it.

Shouldn't this law take into consideration that some people have terrible memories?

You aren't permanently forgetting it though, you're just temporarily forgetting it, and you're blanking on it worse than most people do.

Law enforcement isn't going to care if it takes you a little bit of time to get past your mental block and come up with the password. It's a much bigger deal if you truly forget it and can't reconstitute it at all.

[Edit] I stand corrected, decryption keys are apparently mostly 256bitAES

I still think is not realistic to remember them.

If it is just a password to a wallet of keys or an OS then authorities are more than capable of cracking them - just like FBI vs Apple.

[edit] disagree ? -- Read the court filing , they assert exactly what is on each disk.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c...

If they already know the disk contents then it is not unreasonable to assume :

[Edit] IMHO this fits with the trend of sending chilling effects to journalists - as when they send police with angle grinders to chop up computers and hard drives to the Guardian newspaper ( who then moved to America ).

A decryption key is more likely to be a 256bit AES key, which can be a hash of a strong password. There is no need for public key when encrypting a drive.

Can you remember a 256bit AES key, though ?

Again you don't need to. You need to remember a password, and the hash of that password will be your encryption key.

It gets more interesting when someone has written random data to a disk to wipe it, and authorities assume it's some form of encryption.

Good encryption is indistinguishable from random data.

But RIPA has so far required no proof, only prosecutor assertion.

RIPA is neither cricket nor Queensbury but shameful.

When you write random data to the disk, you will also destroy the boot mount (that little partition that is not encrypted so you can boot the PC and show the password dialog). If you don't overwrite this partition, they police might believe that there is actual data on that disk. And I don't see any reason why you would not erase that part.

Furthermore, if the encrypted AES keys are not stored in that boot partition, and you overwrite them, the algorithm might detect that the keys are corrupted and refuse to decrypt them with the given password. This once happened to me when a disk failed and corrupted the section where these keys were apparently stored. I don't know how truecrypte (the software used to encrypt the hard drive) handles drive encryption, though, so my information might not be accurate.

"When you write random data to the disk, you will also destroy the boot mount"

Except for when you don't... It would be perfectly reasonable for somebody to just overwrite the partition containing the encrypted data, and not the entire disk.

Some people stick their /boot/ partition on external storage which they carry on their person to make Evil Maid attacks more difficult. The drives on those peoples laptops will only contain encrypted data.

I think if you could show eg brain injury that you'd have some ability to fight the order.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III

> (4) [...] and the time specified for the purposes of paragraph (f) must allow a period for compliance which is reasonable in all the circumstances

...but it's probably a bad idea to rely on "I forgot the passphrase".

But this would imply you have a legal obligation to remember something under the penalty of jail time (and people have been sentenced to more than a year under this law). How can it be enforceable? It's a bit like telling me I have the legal obligation to run a marathon under x hours. My body may allow me to do so, or maybe not. But how can it be a legal obligation?

[edit] actually reading the actual law, the wording is being "in possession of a key", and the police has to prove that you are in possession beyond any reasonable doubt. Can a word in someone's brain be characterised as being in possession? And how can the police prove that someone remembers something?

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—

(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same things happens everywhere, but just through a different route (contempt charges, etc.) The court, and by proxy the rest of us, usually finds it interesting that for some reason you were able to remember this password on a daily basis while conducting your alleged crimes, but now you suddenly have a memory problem. We have children too, and recognize this pattern...

You can claim to not remember the password. We can choose not to believe you.

They may not believe me but how can they prove it?

[edit] plus forgetting a password is the most common thing in the world. My work password changes every 3 months. When I go on holiday for 2 weeks, half of the time when I come back I forgot what the latest password is. Now imagine you have been arrested, slept in jail, had rough questioning, being under intense stress. Forgetting a password in these conditions could very well happen in good faith.

The other things is that many of my passwords are stored in my "muscle memory", if I am in front of my usual keyboard I would type them without really thinking about it. But if I am in a room with no computer, I could easily not even remember them.

In any case I don't see how there cannot be a reasonable doubt if someone claims to have forgotten a password.

They don't have to "prove it", the judge or the jury just has to come to the conclusion that you are not telling the truth and you go to jail.

I am not a lawyer but the law does say the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a reasonable burden for sending someone to jail.

Doesn't this mean the prosection makes an assertion and the defendant has to prove the contrary ?

The context for the bit you quote says the defendant must prove the contrary (their innocence).

It does say evidence is required and states that evidence is an assertion of the date and details of the file, nothing more.

This is not a law to be prosecuted but an investigtory power, an obstruction of justice , there is no jury, the judge decides, like contempt of court.

This then imposes a "disclosure requirement" , no further proof is required to jail someone who non-compliant, no jury is involved.

IMHO the standard of proof is no more than prosecutorial assertion of file contents & date so to my mind it guilty by accusation until proven innocent - a travesty.

IMHO the standard of proof is so low, file contents & date that it really seems one is guilty until proven innocent

No, the quote from s 53(3)(b) refers to a defence. You are not in possession of the password if sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_burden), and the contrary (ie. that you were in fact in possession) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Typically you would discharge the evidential burden by giving sworn evidence that you have forgotten the password. The prosecution would then have to adduce evidence that proves the contrary beyond reasonable doubt, for example evidence that you had used the password every day for the past few years.

Secondly, this is a 'law to be prosecuted' in the sense that s 53 creates an ordinary criminal offence. Section 49 creates the investigative power to issue a notice compelling someone to disclose a password, and s 53 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with the notice.

So the defendant must expicitly deny it before proper proof is presented ?

What sort of thing could possibly prove innocence ? A coma or merely a denial ?

The text of RIPA49 states the only defense is to produce the documents and prove you were entitled to them - which is very different.

The law does state that the initial proof is only content description and date which seems a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt.

So it creates a criminal offense, does that mean the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and is that a jury trial ?

What proof was presented in the previous 3 RIPA49 jailings ?

IP addresses, footage or testimony that the guy was using that computer at that time, i.e. means and opportunity ?

My guess is not but I really hope you can show I mistaken and British Justice still stands.

RIPA trumps proof & only requires prosecutorial assertion.

Under RIPA there is no presumption of innocence.

Unbelievable yet sadly true.

[Edit] -- disagree? Well so far this has been how it has played out in practice - if you disagree I challenge you to show me where proof was presented in the other three cases ?

It is requirement by court order, one is then held in contempt of court - it is entirely up to the judge - no jury involved.

We shall see whether any proof is offered, none is in the court filing, though they assert exactly what each file contains:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2781972-Lauri-Love-c...

Or we won't see because this is a secret trial - as the article and court filing state !

Yup reading the law clearly show the only proof is the prosecution states the contents and date as they do in the filing.

The filing contains what they call proof, I believe it better characterised as an assertion.

No jury, just a judge decides if Lauri goes to jail and the only thing that can prevent it is if he proves the contrary.

Ever try and prove a negative ?

Decryption showing no file won't necessarily be sufficient, as the document could still be on a double decrypt in the salt.

They want named documents, the defendant gives them up or goes to jail.

Interesting to note one of the documents is "pirate" movies. (The court filing literally says "pirate", wtf does that even mean). Suppose the movie was crap and he deleted it.

IMHO RIPA 49 is a travesty should not be legal.

Quite possibly isn't, we shall see when it gets to the human rights court - though if I had to put money on it the govt. knows its dodgy and won't let it go that far.

Can no longer edit this but sjy is correct , they accuse and accused denies it they get a jury trial :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25745989 Luton terrorist forced to decrypt USB stick by RIPA.

We have a legal obligation to remember many things, like what road signs mean or when to send tax form to IRS. How is requiring to remember password any different?

Those are things that when you forget them, you can take steps to re-learn them, because the information is publicly available.

On the other hand, I am absolutely certain that I have truecrypt volumes on old backup drives somewhere that I haven't the foggiest idea what the corresponding passphrase is anymore.

The former things are all public information, meant to serve a public function. Personal passwords are not that. Going to jail for forgetting, is like going to jail for losing a physical key - not even a key for an important public function, but anyone's key that was used for any personal purpose.

One could assert that legally you will be punished for this, like the UK have done here, but it's quite a barbaric thing to do without any precedent even in historic infamously-authoritarian regimes.

Road signs is bogus. People sign up for extra responsibilities via the licensing process.

The tax one is a little more interesting, you don't have to file if you don't make any money. If you make more, the payer is supposed to report as well.

Everything i can think of, where you're compelled to do something, there's at least one other person involved.

Your two examples are rules that are public information, and forgetting them can indeed have legal consequences.

A password is a piece of private information, and requiring people to remember stuff they generate in their own head seems just a tad draconian.

> I am not sure how this would be a precedent. People have already gone to jail in the UK under this law

Lauri may well be planning to appeal the matter all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

"I don't remember it" is not a defense and that's why my grandma would to jail after her PC gets infected with ransomware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com