Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Not really. This is the value of crowdsourcing. The audit itself is being conducted by a professional software security firm (our sister company, as it happens) and their portion of it might only have cost a small factor more had complete source code not been available. It's the money and expertise that are making this possible, not the source code.

(Don't get me wrong: I strongly prefer open source software to closed.)

View on HN

I have a question.

Can government issue gag order to security firm doing audit and prevent them from releasing backdoors or intentional weaknesses they discover?

Probably not. But they can contact a security reseach company so they make a "crowdsourced" audit project, perform it and still leave a backdoor or two uncovered. TrueCrypt gets an official audit and NSA keeps the backdoors - win-win. </sarcasm> And there is less chance that anyone else will perform an audit in near future. :(

I am not familiar with the legal situation. However, one needs also to consider extra-juridical means. A security company that does not comply with the demands of the relevant security services is unlikely ever to do major business again in the country where it is based.

No.

I'm surprised you're so confident considering how many experts were shocked to discover how far the US govt had been able to go.

Comes from an understanding of how service providers actually get gagged: the courts actively issue a gag rule based on orders they themselves issued. That's can't be true of basic science.

What if the powers that be decide to "classify" the results/reports? I would guess that would be a big legal hurdle. But if things get to that point, a copy the report would probably show up on wikileaks... I guess?

That's not how classification works.

It's also not how research works. For something to be restrained from publication, the government needs to know it exists. But with new research results, they can't know what to restrain until it's too late.

They could try passing a law outlawing security research, but: good luck with that.

Don't they now know what to restrain? (due to this post, at the very least...)

Well if they planted a backdoor, they can know it exists, and could restrain it before it is too late.

It's not normally how classification works, but then there's the Born Secret doctrine that was (is?) applied to information about nuclear weapons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret

The NSA isn't going to swoop in and claim that the results of the Truecrypt audit were born secret. But the answer to nabla9's question is yes, legal precedent exists in the United States for restraining the publication of original research when it is perceived to damage vital national security interests.

Get outta here, party pooper!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com