bugtraq - Re: Standing Up Against German Laws

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4738A938.1090303@solitox.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:27:52 -0500
From: "Matt D. Harris" <mdh@...itox.net>
To: johan beisser <jb@...stic.org>
Cc: Paul Sebastian Ziegler <psz@...erved.de>,
	bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Standing Up Against German Laws - Project HayNeedle

However some of these issues can be mitigated without too much trouble. 
  For example, one could have a dynamically growing dictionary of words 
to search for based on random words in random results pages that it 
grabs.  At the very least, this would kill any attempts to filter it out 
of the data mining system.

If the point of the system is primarily to create plausible deniability 
for the end-user, that is, to allow them to say "hayneedle hit the site, 
not me, so I am innocent", then I'd say it could be effective in that 
regard barring some proviso in the law that allow them to persecute 
someone who did not actually even visit a site of their own volition. 
Beyond that, it's also effective in terms of turning up the noise to 
signal ratio and making this law that much less effective, while placing 
a greater burden of ISPs who are then more likely to lobby against it 
ever more vigorously.... all while remaining entirely 'white area' in 
terms of functionality.

I understand your post, but I don't think Mr. Ziegler was over-selling 
his product's effectiveness beyond what it is really capable of.

Take care, Matt

johan beisser wrote:
> 
> On Nov 10, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Paul Sebastian Ziegler wrote:
> 
>> The mechanism is quite easy: It searches Google for random words and
>> picks random pages among the results, then spiders from there (well it
>> is spidering except that it only follows one URL at a time within a
>> session thus simulating a user).
> 
> There's a few things wrong with this approach. Most of them were 
> outlined by Bruce Schneier when he reviewed "TrackMeNot"[1] last year.
> 
> The same issues with TrackMeNot apply to Hayneedle, including potential 
> false positives, and list of word combinations that can be filtered out 
> easily, and well, the list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/trackmenot_1.html
> 
> 

-- 
/*
  * mdh - Solitox Networks (Lead Project Engineer)
  * Facts often matter little, in the face of fervently held perceptions
  */