Security firm RSA has denied it entered into a contract that it knew would give the NSA a backdoor into its BSAFE security system. Last week, Reuters claimed the NSA paid RSA $10 million to make an algorithm called "Dual EC DRBG" the preferred, or default system in BSAFE. The security giant says that, although it has worked with the NSA, the relationship has never been a secret, and the relationship has been with the "explicit goal" of strengthening security.
In a tightly worded blog post, RSA also gives a timeline of the backdoor debacle. It says it decided to use the random number generator Dual EC DRBG based on advice from the National Institute of Standards (NIST) that deemed the generator safe. It says the algorithm was "only one of multiple choices available within BSAFE toolkits," and adds that, although concerns were raised in 2007 about a possible backdoor in the standard, it "continued to rely upon NIST as the arbiter of that discussion."
When NIST eventually recommended against Dual EC DRBG back in September, the RSA passed that guidance on to its customers. The company closes its argument saying it has "never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA's products, or introducing potential 'backdoors' into our products for anyone's use."
Although RSA's argument appears solid, there are a number of potential "backdoors" in its wording. First, it never denies the claim that the NSA paid $10 million to include Dual EC DRBG as the default algorithm in BSAFE. Second, by noting its reliance on NIST for decision-making, RSA essentially admits that it was aware of the claims and never passed them on to its customers. Finally, it doesn't explain why it continued to use the now-suspect generator as a default algorithm in BSAFE, rather than downgrading it to optional status and using one of its aforementioned "multiple choices available" as a default instead.
Comments
Ah, dont you just love spin doctors.
By pranav0091 on 12.23.13 6:59am
Everything around us is a big obfuscated lie.
By poutcho on 12.23.13 7:20am
/s
fixed the comment for you.
By freesets on 12.23.13 7:47am
I thought the sarcasm was obvious…
By pranav0091 on 12.23.13 8:01am
Don’t worry, it was
By VoxMediaUser609758 on 12.23.13 8:33am
What are you all talking about? No sarcasm was intended.
By poutcho on 12.23.13 10:32am
dude I’m just trying to perpetuate this first comment thread thing… i don’t really know what i’m talking about
By VoxMediaUser609758 on 12.23.13 3:30pm
Are spin doctors covered under Obamacare?
By Miku on 12.23.13 10:32am
Yes, but you probably won’t be able to keep the one you have now.
By cwpedersen on 12.23.13 12:09pm
Classic.
By ricequackers on 12.23.13 7:01am
classic security company you should trust
By freesets on 12.23.13 7:50am
I also liked the article’s homepage highlight, “A cryptic denial”.
By Super Number on 12.23.13 9:10am
By Bro! on 12.23.13 7:01am
By freesets on 12.23.13 8:00am
Really? So instead of believing other prominent cryptographers in the industry like Bruce Schneier and Neil Ferguson that it was a backdoor, you thought nothing was strange about an algorithm that was NSA-made and backed by an NSA-controlled institute? Interesting.
And at all this time, none of your “expert cryptographers” that you keep bragging about decided to verify NIST’s claims, and they all just took their word for it? So you’re just saying that what you did wasn’t criminal – it’s just that you, as a security firm, are completely incompetent? Well, I’m sure your customers would love to learn all about that, too.
By powerup on 12.23.13 7:22am
Niels*
By powerup on 12.23.13 8:16am
NIST is not NSA-controlled. You have no idea what you’re talking about and undermine the credibility of your own comments with that piece of nonsense.
Even at their worst in this scandal, NIST was not being “controlled” by the NSA, but merely duped by them:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist
By MacEnvy on 12.23.13 9:38am
So what you’re saying is that it wasn’t intended by the original creators, but the organization now exists as a perverted version of itself since it was infiltrated/behind the scenes coup. Sounds like it’s pretty much NSA controlled, dude.
By janderson215 on 12.23.13 11:45am
I wonder if there are grounds for a lawsuit against rsa.
By ssxm on 12.23.13 12:41pm
Hahaha, so basically they just acknolewdge it is true with their own words.
RSA is dead.
By Someone5682 on 12.23.13 8:03am
What about just paying an individual employee?
I’m sure back when they were just a small startup, paying off employee number 4 cant be that expensive
Its what i would do
By ***** on 12.23.13 8:10am
“You did not actually catch our hands in the cookie jar as that jar was used only for candies. BTW, cookies with M&Ms are considered candy. We also argue that anything made with sugar may be considered candy. It is also well known that only cookies, and not candies, give you cavities.”
By RainyDayInterns on 12.23.13 8:19am
bottom line?if grc.com (steve Gibson)and his allies aren’t included in the talk ?you can be sure the future encrypting isn’t gona be secure ! hell if I recall steve had spoke about these issue because one of his connection had detected these stupidity!men this is sad ! at least now we know why security rep stay away from grc and all the security genious steve and friend know !
By michel leclerc on 12.23.13 8:44am
Steve Gibson is the man. I’m impressed by his SQRL project and hope it takes off.
By angrybadger on 12.23.13 10:02pm
Watch this video. It explains the situation very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulg_AHBOIQU
By chrisisdesen on 12.23.13 8:57am