How to install VeraCrypt PIM encryption tool in Ubuntu Linux – H2S Media

- Advertisement -

VeraCrypt is open-source software and forked of TrueCrypt that meant to provide encryption to your data and drive on Ubuntu, Debian, Windows, macOS, CentOS, OpenSuse and other similar platforms. It can be used to create encrypted containers as well as encrypted hard drives, SSDs, USB sticks and SD cards. The operation of VeraCrypt is similar to that of TrueCrypt. Furthermore, the Veracrypt Portable a portable version is also available for Windows.

Using the VeryCrypt, we can encrypt not only the whole drive or partition but also some particular folder or entire system. Furthermore, we can create a hidden VeraCrypt partition to protect highly sensitive data with encryption and secure password.

It offers multiple encryption algorithms along with well-known AES 256-bit encryption. The VeryCrypt makers name the special strength of their hash algorithms using RIPEMD160, SHA-2 and Whirlpool, which have significantly more iterations. However, one downside of encrypting a large amount of data partition is it takes time to create and mount initially. However, speed is not affected.

Also, once you have encrypted the drive or folder it cannot be accessed through normal file explorer of the system unless and until mounted using the program and then assigning a drive letter.

What is VeraCrypt PIM?

PIM stands for Personal Iterations Multiplier. It is a parameter that was introduced in VeraCrypt 1.12 and whose value controls the number of iterations used by the header key derivation function. This value can be specified through the password dialogue or in the command line.

If no PIM value is specified, VeraCrypt will use the default number of iterations used in versions prior to 1.12.

The below-given steps can also be used on other Ubuntu or Debian based operating systems such as Kali Linux, Linux Mint, Elementary OS, MX Linux and more to install Veracrypt. Here we are using Ubuntu 18.04, however, the command will be the same for Ubuntu 19.10, 17.04, 16,04

It is cross-platform which is not only available for Debian & Ubuntu but also for Windows, CentOS including macOS as aforementioned, thus as per your system version download the available Debian package from its official website. For example, here we are using Ubuntu 18.04, thus we will download the package available for it. Note: If you want to use the GUI version of the software the go for the GUI Veracrypt Debian package.

Download Veracrypt Debian packages for Ubuntu

Just like Windows, we can also install software on Ubuntu with just one click using the Software centre. Go to the Downloads, as by default the file we get from a browser goes into it. There you will see the downloaded package of this encryption tool. Double click on it and select the Install button.

veracrypt-1.24-update4-ubuntu-18.04-amd64.deb

Install Veracrypt packages

If you want to use the command line, then simply open the Command terminal and type:

To install the Debian package the command will be:

Note: Replace the filename the one which is showing in your terminal.

In our case it was like appearing the below screenshotthus the command will be:

install using the command line

After installing it, go to Ubuntu or your Linux applications menu and search for Veracypt, as it appears, click on its icon to run and launch it.

Launch Veracrypt on Ubuntu

Now, the Veracrypt will be in front of you. We can simply create an encrypted volume using the Create Volume button or select the particular file to encrypt. For more info on it see our article on Vercypt usage on Windows to get an idea of it because the usage of it will be similar for all OS.

use VeraCrypt on Linux

Other Articles:

See the original post:
How to install VeraCrypt PIM encryption tool in Ubuntu Linux - H2S Media

Encryption Software Market 2020 Trends, Market Share, Industry Size, Opportunities, Analysis and Forecast by 2026 – Instant Tech News

Encryption Software Market Overview:

Global Encryption Software Market was valued at USD 3.32 billion in 2016 and is projected to reach USD 30.54 billion by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 27.96% from 2017 to 2025.

In the report, we thoroughly examine and analyze the Global market for Encryption Software so that market participants can improve their business strategy and ensure long-term success. The reports authors used easy-to-understand language and complex statistical images, but provided detailed information and data on the global Encryption Software market. This report provides players with useful information and suggests result-based ideas to give them a competitive advantage in the global Encryption Software market. Show how other players compete in the global Encryption Software market and explain the strategies you use to differentiate yourself from other participants.

The researchers provided quantitative and qualitative analyzes with evaluations of the absolute dollar opportunity in the report. The report also includes an analysis of Porters Five Forces and PESTLE for more detailed comparisons and other important studies. Each section of the report offers players something to improve their gross margins, sales and marketing strategies, and profit margins. As a tool for insightful market analysis, this report enables players to identify the changes they need to do business and improve their operations. You can also identify key electrical bags and compete with other players in the global Encryption Software market.

Request a Report Brochure @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=1826&utm_source=ITN&utm_medium=001

Top 10 Companies in the Encryption Software Market Research Report:

Dell, Thales E-Security, Eset, Symantec, IBM Corporation, Sophos, Ciphercloud, Pkware, Mcafee, Gemalto, Trend Micro, Microsoft Corporation

Encryption Software Market Competition:

Each company evaluated in the report is examined for various factors such as the product and application portfolio, market share, growth potential, future plans and recent developments. Readers gain a comprehensive understanding and knowledge of the competitive environment. Most importantly, this report describes the strategies that key players in the global Encryption Software market use to maintain their advantage. It shows how market competition will change in the coming years and how players are preparing to anticipate the competition.

Encryption Software Market Segmentation:

The analysts who wrote the report ranked the global Encryption Software market by product, application, and region. All sectors were examined in detail, focusing on CAGR, market size, growth potential, market share and other important factors. The segment studies included in the report will help players focus on the lucrative areas of the global Encryption Software market. Regional analysis will help players strengthen their base in the major regional markets. This shows the opportunities for unexplored growth in local markets and how capital can be used in the forecast period.

Regions Covered by the global market for Smart Camera:

Middle East and Africa (GCC countries and Egypt)North America (USA, Mexico and Canada)South America (Brazil, etc.)Europe (Turkey, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, France etc.)Asia Pacific (Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia and Australia)

Ask for Discount @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=1826&utm_source=ITN&utm_medium=001

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Encryption Software Market

1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology of Verified Market Research

3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Encryption Software Market Outlook

4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Encryption Software Market, By Deployment Model

5.1 Overview

6 Encryption Software Market, By Solution

6.1 Overview

7 Encryption Software Market, By Vertical

7.1 Overview

8 Encryption Software Market, By Geography

8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Encryption Software Market Competitive Landscape

9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles

10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix

11.1 Related Research

Get a Complete Market Report in your Inbox within 24 hours @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/global-encryption-software-market-size-and-forecast-to-2025/?utm_source=ITN&utm_medium=001

About Us:

Verified market research partners with clients to provide insight into strategic and growth analytics; data that help achieve business goals and targets. Our core values include trust, integrity, and authenticity for our clients.

Analysts with high expertise in data gathering and governance utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. Our analysts are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research reports.

Contact Us:

Mr. Edwyne FernandesCall: +1 (650) 781 4080Email: [emailprotected]

TAGS: Encryption Software Market Size, Encryption Software Market Growth, Encryption Software Market Forecast, Encryption Software Market Analysis, Encryption Software Market Trends, Encryption Software Market

See the original post here:
Encryption Software Market 2020 Trends, Market Share, Industry Size, Opportunities, Analysis and Forecast by 2026 - Instant Tech News

Congress, Not the Attorney General, Should Decide the Future of Encryption – Lawfare

The debate over end-to-end encryption focuses on the substantive question: Should encryption be restricted to help law enforcement, or do the privacy and security benefits of this technology outweigh its costs? A draft copy of the EARN IT Act, which could deprive platforms that use end-to-end encryption of their immunity from civil suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for child exploitation materials posted by users, has a set off a new round of debate.

But the encryption debate frequently ignores the vital procedural question: Who should decide? The EARN IT Act puts that question front and center by giving the attorney general the ultimate say in setting the best practices that will give Section 230 immunity for child exploitation suits. (And given Attorney General William Barrs recent statements criticizing end-to-end encryption, it is reasonable to think that he might include forgoing end-to-end encryption in the best practices.) Passing the buck to the attorney general is a bad idea.

As a threshold matter, the attorney general is not the right person to make this decision. Encryption is an issue that implicates many competing values, but the attorney generals natural focus will be on the subset for which he is responsible: fighting crime. His decision-making will reflect this priority, potentially at the cost of other values. This is not meant to single out the attorney general. It wouldnt make sense to put sole authority to determine best practices in the hands of the secretary of commerce, whose primary responsibility is the economic competitiveness of U.S. industry, not law enforcement effectiveness. Decisions about encryption should not be delegated to one agency alone.

More fundamentally, the question of whether to permit ubiquitous encryption is the sort of high-level policy decision that is best handled not by the executive branch but by Congress, which best represents the public and its different constituencies and interests. Congress doesnt have to do the technical heavy lifting; it could, for example, organize an expert committee to offer proposals or even outsource that job to various executive agencies, which could then return competing recommendations. But the legislature shouldnt shirk its responsibility to make this tough decision. To this extent, critics of the EARN IT Act, such as Stanfords Rianna Pfefferkorn, are right to call it a bait and switch, designed to limit encryption while giving legislators space to deny thats what theyre doing.

In the meantime, theres plenty that Congress can do to help fight child exploitation without prematurely wading into the encryption fight. And the easiest way to accomplish that is to explicitly make any child exploitation bill neutral on the issue of encryption. Congress has included neutrality riders before, in CALEA (47 U.S.C. 1002(b)(3)) and, more recently, in the CLOUD Act (18 U.S.C. 2523(b)(3)). In the case of the EARN IT Act, for example, Congress could exclude anything related to encryption from the list of best practices.

The decision whether or not to restrict end-to-end encryption is too important to be made indirectly. Congress should ultimately decideand if it wants to delay that decision, it shouldn't let anyone else do its job in the meantime.

Visit link:
Congress, Not the Attorney General, Should Decide the Future of Encryption - Lawfare

Indias proposed internet regulations could threaten privacy everywhere – The Verge

In December, after a somewhat bruising Senate hearing with Facebook, I argued that the fight over encryption was just beginning. This week, with India poised to unveil new rules that threaten encrypted communications around the world, it seems safe to say that the encryption fight is now fully underway.

First, some background.

Messaging products that are end-to-end encrypted can be read only by the sender and the recipient. The encrypted platform itself such as Apples iCloud, or Facebooks WhatsApp cant read the message, because it doesnt have a key. This has led to periodic attempts from law enforcement agencies and lawmakers to force platforms to create so-called backdoors that would allow them to snoop on the contents of those messages. But the platforms have resisted, and the issue has generally been in a stalemate.

In India, though, things are moving very quickly to make end-to-end encryption illegal. The country has sought to exert more control over the internet in the wake of lynchings committed after false rumors spread on WhatsApp. But the Indian government has often taken a draconian approach to regulating the web shutting down internet access at least 95 times last year, including an indefinite shutdown in Kashmir that a judge called an abuse of power earlier this year.

Now a set of rules proposed a little over a year ago would force tech platforms to cooperate continuously with government requests, without requiring so much as a warrant or court order. Among the requirements is that any post be traceable to its origin. And in what is believed to be a world first, the rules would require tech companies to do the investigating to deploy their sophisticated tools to track a posts spread on their network back to its point of origin, and then turn that information over to law enforcement.

This is quite different from the current approach, in which law enforcement identifies a suspect and then asks platforms to supply information about them. Now tech companies could essentially be required to serve as deputies of the state, conducting investigations on behalf of law enforcement, without so much as a court order.

That almost certainly means breaking encryption how else could tech companies be expected to trace the source of a message? Imagine Clearview AI, but as a service tech companies are required to provide to law enforcement for free, and you start to understand what the Indian government is asking for here.

The final rules are expected to be released imminently, Saritha Roi reports in Bloomberg:

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is expected to publish the new rules later this month without major changes, according to a government official familiar with the matter. [...]

The provisions in the earlier draft had required platforms such as Googles YouTube or ByteDance Inc.s TikTok, Facebook or its Instagram and WhatsApp apps, to help the government trace the origins of a post within 72 hours of a request. The companies would also have to preserve their records for at least 180 days to aid government investigators, establish a brick-and-mortar operation within India and appoint both a grievance officer to deal with user complaints and a government liaison.

The rules would apply to any app with more than 5 million users, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok. Bloomberg reports that its not clear whether the identities of foreign users would be exempt.

The tech companies are fighting back. A trade group has argued that the rules would represent a severe violation of Indian citizens privacy, and they would almost certainly sue if the rules were implemented as written.

But theres no guarantee that theyll win. And if these rules take effect India wont be the last democracy to implement them. Tech companies will come under increasing pressure to implement a similar system in other Western countries. (Australia seems poised to try to break encryption as well.)

What happens if encryption supporters lose? First, privacy is diminished for billions of users including for activists, dissidents, victims of domestic abuse, businesses, and even government workers who have come to rely on secure messaging.

Second, the move could hurt the tech sector both in India and abroad by making it prohibitively expensive to launch a new business. Who can afford to build a compliance regime that requires the company to accommodate any government request, no matter how small, from day one? In practice, the answer is likely to be only incumbents. Hannah Quay-de la Vallee makes this point here:

If this rule is implemented in India (and potentially copied by other nations) it could force companies to create two types of systems one that uses e2e and one that doesnt. Companies might well justifiably balk at the cost and complexity of that approach and simply build less secure systems. That would weaken the overall safety of the internet ecosystem, harming users around the globe. Alternatively they could remove themselves from the Indian market altogether, depriving 1.2 billion people of state-of-the-art internet security. Neither of these are good outcomes.

Given how many things Americans have to worry about domestically, I understand how a story about Indian internet rules can fly under the radar. But its important to recognize that the spirit thats animating the discussion in India is alive and well in the United States. Threats to privacy are multiplying faster than tech or society can deal with them. In such a world, encryption is one of the last and best tools we have to fight back.

Today in news that could affect public perception of the big tech platforms.

Trending sideways: Facebooks fundraising features, which have led to more than $3 billion in donations since 2015, have generated significant goodwill. But nonprofits are complaining they dont receive enough data about donors to form long-lasting relationships.

Mike Bloomberg is paying some of the biggest meme-makers on the internet to post sponsored content on Instagram promoting his presidential campaign. Hes working with Meme 2020, a company formed by some of the people behind extremely influential accounts, like Mick Purzycki of Jerry Media. Taylor Lorenz at The New York Times has the scoop:

The campaign, which launched this week, has already placed sponsored posts on Instagram accounts including @GrapeJuiceBoys, a meme page with more than 2.7 million followers; Jerry Medias own most popular account, with more than 13.3 million followers; and @Tank.Sinatra, a member with more than 2.3 million followers.

The accounts all posted Bloomberg campaign ads in the form of fake direct messages from the candidate.

Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle and one of the worlds richest men, is throwing a fundraiser for Donald Trump. Its the most significant display of support from a major tech titan for the president, by far. (Theodore Schleifer / Recode)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) released a proposal to overhaul the way the US government regulates privacy. Her new Data Protection Act would create an independent agency to protect consumer data at large. (Makena Kelly / The Verge)

A court in Moscow fined Twitter and Facebook 4 million rubles each (a piddling $63,000) for refusing to store the personal data of Russian citizens on servers in their home country. Its the largest penalty imposed on Western technology companies yet under Russias new internet laws, which are designed to give the government more control over peoples online activity. (Associated Press)

A network of news sites is expanding across the country. Nearly 40 websites masquerading as conservative local news outlets were discovered in Michigan in October. Now, additional statewide networks have sprung up in Montana and Iowa. (Katherina Sourine and Dominick Sokotoff / The Michigan Daily)

A mobile voting app used in West Virginia has basic security flaws that could allow someone to see and intercept votes as theyre transmitted from mobile phones to the voting companys server. Its the latest evidence that digital voting solutions are not secure. (Kim Zetter / Vice)

Facebooks dataset of anonymized URLs, which is meant to help researchers study the impact of social media on democracy, is finally live. The project, which allows approved researchers to see every link shared on Facebook, is part of a research partnership with Social Science One. Gary King and Nathaniel Persily of Social Science One talk about why the launch took so long:

When Facebook originally agreed to make data available to academics through a structure we developed (King and Persily, 2019, GaryKing.org/partnerships) and Mark Zuckerberg testified about our idea before Congress, we thought this day would take about two months of work; it has taken twenty. Since the original Request for Proposals was announced, we have been able to approve large numbers of researchers, and we continue to do so. When this project began, we thought the political and legal aspects of our job were over, and we merely needed to identify, prepare, and document data for researchers with our Facebook counterparts. In fact, most of the last twenty months has involved negotiating with Facebook over their increasingly conservative views of privacy and the law, trying to get different groups within the company on the same page, and watching Facebook build an information security and data privacy infrastructure adequate to share data with academics.

Facebooks New Product Experimentation team released a Pinterest-like app for saving and sharing photos of activities like cooking and home improvement projects. The app, called Hobbi, is meant to help you document and remember the things you love to do. Pinterest stock dipped on the news. (Alex Heath / The Information)

Teens are creating thrifting communities on Instagram where they buy and sell clothes in photos and comments. Its like a modern-day eBay. (Mia Sato / Input)

Jeff Bezos bought the most expensive property in LA with an eighth of a percent of his net worth. It is literally impossible to imagine just how rich the wealthiest people on the planet are. (Bijan Stephen / The Verge)

Amazons first employee, Shel Kaphan, says breaking up the company could potentially make sense. In an interview for a new PBS Frontline documentary about Amazon, Kaphan said hes proud of what the company has become, but also conflicted. (Jason Del Rey / Recode)

In 2019, YouTube dominated 70 percent of the total time people spent on their phones watching the top five entertainment apps. Its success is something that companies like Netflix, WarnerMedia, NBCUniversal, and Disney will have to take into account as they compete for peoples attention. (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

The CEO of an AI startup with deep ties to the University of Michigan just stepped down from the company amid allegations of sexual misconduct. But hes still a professor at the school. (Zoe Schiffer / The Verge)

Ezra Kleins new book, Why Were Polarized, charts 50 years of American history to figure out why our political climate is the way it is. It turns out the answer is a lot more complicated than just social media. (Nicholas Thompson / Wired)

New social media advice when going through a breakup: Deactivate your accounts, have a trusted friend change the passwords, and avoid looking back for as long as you can stand it. (Katie Way / Vice)

Im sure theres relevant context here, but Ive decided that I dont care to look it up.

Send us tips, comments, questions, and your WhatsApp user ID: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

Continued here:
Indias proposed internet regulations could threaten privacy everywhere - The Verge

WhatsApp hits 2 billion users, resists governments on encryption – Business Insider – Business Insider

WhatsApp is bracing itself for a clash with the US government over encryption.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Wednesday, the head of WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, said the messaging app had hit 2 billion users, up from 1.5 billion two years ago. It still falls behind the core Facebook app, which has 2.5 billion users.

Cathcart used the interview as a chance to draw a line in the sand over end-to-end encryption, the system that allows WhatsApp users' messages to stay private and inaccessible even by WhatsApp.

WhatsApp and its parent company, Facebook, have come under pressure from the US government recently to create ways for law enforcement to circumvent encryption. Attorney General William Barr last year asked Facebook to delay its plans for encrypting all its messaging platforms which Facebook rejected.

"For all of human history, people have been able to communicate privately with each other," Cathcart told The Journal, adding: "And we don't think that should go away in a modern society."

The US isn't the only government that's been pressuring WhatsApp to break encryption. Last year the allied "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing countries (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) united in pushing for encrypted services to build "safeguards" for law enforcement though they stopped short of calling for deliberate security vulnerabilities known as backdoors.

The argument against backdoors runs that they weaken the system, as they could be exploited by malicious actors rather than law enforcement.

Cathcart said that despite Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's grand plans to weave together Facebook's suite of social-media platforms including Instagram and WhatsApp, WhatsApp's engineers were still focused on a constrained set of products consisting of private messaging, payments, and customer-service tools for businesses.

Go here to read the rest:
WhatsApp hits 2 billion users, resists governments on encryption - Business Insider - Business Insider

CIA Encryption Meddling and Chinese Espionage Allegations Make It Clear: We All Need Strong Data Protection – Reason

U.S. officials have been insisting to tech platforms that overly strong encryption is a threat to public safety and that "back doors" must be provided for law enforcement to bypass security, all in the name of fighting crime.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials have also been claiming that China-based tech company Huawei can use secret security bypasses that are intended for law enforcement use only in order to access data that could be used by the Chinese government for surveillance purposes.

In summation: The same U.S. government that wants tech companies and telecoms to create secret software doors that would allow it to snoop on our private communications and data is also worried that other governments will be able to use those same back doors to do the same thing. This is what tech privacy experts have been warning U.S. officials (and U.K. officials and Australian officials) all along: Any back door that allows law enforcement to circumvent user privacy protections will ultimately be used by people with bad intentions.

The context here is a Wall Street Journal report that reveals U.S. officials have been quietly telling allies that Huawei can secretly access data from its phone networks through taps that the company built into the hardware it sells to cellphone carriers. Laws mandate that Huawei (and other telecom companies) install these "interception interfaces" into their equipment, but only authorized law enforcement officials are supposed to have access. Even Huawei itself is not supposed to be able to gain access without the permission of the phone carriers. But U.S. officials are insistent that Huawei has maintained secret access to these taps since at least 2009.

Huawei says these claims are not true and that these hardware taps can only be accessed by "certified personnel of the network operators." The company also insists it is not surveilling data and passing it along to the Chinese government.

The story leans heavily on U.S. claims from secret intelligence that has recently been declassified, but it's not exactly proof of the claims.

On a surface level, this is about the global tech market and the competition between China and the United States. But dig deeper and you can see the relevance to our encryption fight.

The FBI and Department of Justice insist that tech companies need to be adding similar, virtual back doors in our communication tools, phones, and apps in the name of fighting crime and terrorism. People like FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General William Barr are willing to discuss encryption back doors only in terms of how it helps the U.S. government. But this Wall Street Journal report makes it clear that the U.S. government is abundantly aware that any access point (real or virtual) to look at private data is a point of vulnerability.

If this intelligence is true, it means that any government-mandated encryption bypass is potentially abusable and the U.S. should not be demanding tech companies make them, lest the Chinese government (or Saudi government, or Russian government, or United Arab Emirates, or identity thieves with hacking skills) get their hands on whatever mechanism created for law enforcement use only.

If the intelligence is not true, it nevertheless makes it clear that the United States understands that back doors create huge vulnerabilities. Government officials know full well that the Justice Department's demands are unreasonable and should be shut down, and lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) should not be proposing bills to force companies to implement encryption back doors.

But then, perhaps I should simply stop treating the Justice Department and Congress as though they're making these arguments in good faith. You see, yesterday, the Washington Post published a very different story about encryption and data privacy. It turns out that, for decades, the CIA and German intelligence owned and secretly operated an encryption company named Crypto AG. They sold compromised encryption technology to other countries, then secretly spied on them. The Washington Post reports that

they monitored Iran's mullahs during the 1979 hostage crisis, fed intelligence about Argentina's military to Britain during the Falklands War, tracked the assassination campaigns of South American dictators and caught Libyan officials congratulating themselves on the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco.

Germany left the partnership in the 1990s, fearing exposure. So the CIA ran the company until 2018 when it liquidated Crypto AG and sold it off to two companies, one of whom apparently had no idea about its secret background.

We should be wary of the U.S. government doubling down on its efforts to compromise encryption, especially now that Crypto AG is not of use to the CIA. We know full well those back doors are going to be used for a lot more than trying to track down alleged pedophiles, and the federal government knows that, too.

Go here to see the original:
CIA Encryption Meddling and Chinese Espionage Allegations Make It Clear: We All Need Strong Data Protection - Reason

WhatsApp defends encryption as it tops 2 billion users – Fin24

The Facebook-owned messaging service WhatsApp said on Wednesday it now has more than two billion users around the world as it reaffirmed its commitment to strong encryption to protect privacy.

WhatsApp, acquired by Facebook in 2014, has grown into one of the most widely used services in the Facebook "family" of apps, offering free messaging along with voice and video calls.

"Private conversations that once were only possible face-to-face can now take place across great distances through instant chats and video calling," a WhatsApp blog post said.

"There are so many significant and special moments that take place over WhatsApp and we are humbled and honored to reach this milestone."

The statement said WhatsApp remained committed to its "strong encryption" that enables users to connect privately even amid calls by law enforcement in the United States and elsewhere to provide more access.

"Strong encryption is a necessity in modern life. We will not compromise on security because that would make people less safe," WhatsApp said.

"For even more protection, we work with top security experts, employ industry leading technology to stop misuse as well as provide controls and ways to report issues - without sacrificing privacy."

Last week, child protection organisations called on Facebook to halt plans for strong encryption of all its platforms, saying that would allow predators to operate freely.

WhatsApp employs "end to end encryption" which can in many cases prevent law enforcement from accessing user data even with a court order.

The social network is working to extend end-to-end encryption across its messaging applications, including Facebook Messenger and Instagram.

Back door dilemma

Child protection groups have expressed fears that stronger encryption of online exchanges would facilitate the sharing of child pornography.

Backers of strong encryption argue that any special access or "backdoors" allowed for law enforcement would weaken security and could be exploited by criminals, hackers and authoritarian governments.

Officials from the US, Britain and Australia late last year called on Facebook to allow authorities to circumvent encryption to better fight extremism, child pornography and other crimes.

The heads of Facebook's WhatsApp and Messenger, Will Cathcart and Stan Chudnovsky, responded in a letter to officials from the three countries that allowing this kind of "backdoor" access "would be a gift to criminals, hackers and repressive regimes" while leaving users vulnerable.

Facebook's stance on encryption has been backed by more than 100 activist organizations, security experts and industry groups who warned against efforts to force tech companies to weaken encryption.

Despite its strong encryption, WhatsApp has seen flaws exploited in cyberspace.

Human rights activists have said that spyware hidden in WhatsApp messages, possible developed by Israel-based NSO Group, was used to track dissidents and others.

Amazon chief Jeff Bezos's phone is also believed to have been infected by spyware hidden in a WhatsApp message from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

WhatsApp in October sued NSO Group, accusing it of using the messaging service to conduct cyberespionage on journalists, human rights activists and others.

Breakup?

WhatsApp is one member of the Facebook app "family" that includes its core social network, Instagram and Messenger.

Facebook said recently some 2.89 billion people globally are daily users of at least one of these services.

But the growth has also attracted attention of regulators and activists concerned over the dominance of major tech platforms. Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has been among those calling for the breakup of the big technology firms.

Facebook has argued against the idea of a breakup, saying the company is better able to keep its services safe and secure with a unified infrastructure.

Read more here:
WhatsApp defends encryption as it tops 2 billion users - Fin24

Reader question, answered: If I have https, do I need a VPN? – ZDNet

I recently got another letter from a reader that can serve as a great foundation for an article. Our reader asks:

Is not the encryption provided by my browser on the data I exchange with an https: site sufficient to protect the data? My understanding has been that it is. If so, a VPN is not needed for this purpose. Furthermore if so, it's perfectly safe for me to exchange private data (say, account info with my bank or stock broker) over any public, open network.

Of course, VPN's provide several other valuable functions, but as I understand it they do NOT provide any additional security to the actual data exchanged. VPN providers would likely not want to highlight this.

There's a lot to unpack in our reader's letter. Let's dig into each question/statement one-by-one.

Separate from the technical questions, our reader makes an assertion I think deserves an immediate and somewhat forceful correction. Our reader states:

It's perfectly safe for me to exchange private data (say, account info with my bank or stock broker) over any public, open network [using https].

Let's get this out of the way: It is never, ever, in any way, ever "perfectly safe" to exchange data over the internet, whether via a public, open network (shudder) or even from your home or office.

If reading ZDNet regularly tells you anything, it's that there are security breaches and security flaws throughout our networks that occur with constant, never-ending, and pretty much overwhelming regularity.

Also:The best VPN services for 2020CNET

I'm not going to go into either all the breaches or even all the ways message traffic can be intercepted while in motion. Suffice to say, our data is never "perfectly safe," and so we must always take action to protect ourselves, our data, and by extension, our financial and physical security.

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Because of this reality, we often practice a belt-and-suspenders approach to all of our security practices. That means, even though we may have one level of security, it's never enough. That method of security may be cracked or buggy, or there may be some other reason it's leaky. It's always best to have multiple approaches to keeping safe.

Let's start with what https does. It secures (through encryption) an http connection between a website and your browser. That means that the contents of what you're transmitting are unlikely to be read or changed between your browser and the website.

But you are not in control of this connection. It's up to the website operator (and any associated services it calls on) to be sure to properly set up and operate the secure connection.

Not all websites use https, so anything you do on an unencrypted connection is visible. What's actually of far greater concern with unencrypted traffic is that an attacker (usually called a Man in the Middle attack) can modify what is sent, injecting tracking bits -- or worse, malware -- into the stream.

The most visible of these are Great Cannon-style attacks that inject JavaScript and HTML payloads into unprotected web traffic. These payloads then conduct denial of service attacks (hence: cannon) against targets of interest to the hackers.

No one wants their web browser unwittingly turned into a denial of service weapon.

Another thing to consider about https encryption is it only encrypts your web traffic. Any other internet activity is not touched by the https protocol and therefore requires its own encryption. Examples of other activity include web-based video games that might send your account, password, and even credit card information in the clear; an e-mail program; or even a locally run accounting program.

So, yes, https does help. But it's only one security accessory in a belts-and-suspenders-security ensemble.

There's another encryption element that sometimes comes into the chain. That's the Wi-Fi encryption you get when you use a Wi-Fi router with a password.

Of course, here's another point of risk: You have no way of telling if the Wi-Fi router has been spoofed, and you're really sending all your data through a pineapple or some other data spoofing device.

This statement by our reader is a little tough to unpack: "VPN's provide several other valuable functions, but as I understand it they do NOT provide any additional security to the actual data exchanged."

I think what our reader is saying that VPNs provide other services, but they don't provide any other data security services. But VPNs do. They also encrypt data.

VPNs absolutely do provide data security services. Packets are encrypted from the local browser to the VPN service provider. All packets.

Now, it's important to understand where this encryption helps and where it doesn't. If you're on your web browser in a coffee shop and you're talking to your bank's web interface, your traffic is encrypted in your browser, goes from your device to a local router, to the local ISP, across a whole bunch of hops, and then to your bank, where it's decrypted.

Https will encrypt that entire pipe, but only if everything is set up correctly.

Now, if you're using a VPN (with https or not), your data is encrypted on your computer. If you're using https, the https-encrypted data is encrypted again by the VPN. That data then travels over the usual hops to a VPN server, is decrypted once (the VPN's layer is removed), and sent on to your bank.

The benefit of VPN encryption is from your device to the VPN provider on the internet. This protects nearly all coffee shops, airports, and hotel lurkers who might try to snag your data in motion.

When it comes to thinking about mobile security, it's important to keep in mind the endpoints and what's being encrypted. Let's look at the last three we discussed:

Can you see how these different elements encrypt and decrypt at different points? Also, keep in mind that any one (or more) of these security services may be compromised. Plus, of course, there are other levels of encryption, like encrypted SSL and TLS tunnels between websites and payment providers.

By using multiple layers of encryption, each unable to see into the other, you're reducing the chance that any one compromised network will compromise you.

As we've discussed in our various VPN reviews and guides, different commercial VPN services provide different added value. Some mix in anti-virus. Some mix in some identity protection services.

But all VPNs provide another very important security service: IP address obfuscation.

If you use a VPN, you get an IP address from the VPN provider. This is the IP address recorded by various services on the web. This allows you to protect your identity in terms of where you're located, what ISP you're using, or even what country you're in.

For some of us, this is a less critical service. For others, especially those dealing with stalking or other personal protection worries, VPN location protection services are essential.

So, in answering my reader's question, do they need a VPN? It's up to them. But is https the be-all and end-all of internet security? Oh, hell no.

What tools do you use to protect your security? Let me know in the comments below.

You can follow my day-to-day project updates on social media. Be sure to follow me on Twitter at @DavidGewirtz, on Facebook at Facebook.com/DavidGewirtz, on Instagram at Instagram.com/DavidGewirtz, and on YouTube at YouTube.com/DavidGewirtzTV.

Link:
Reader question, answered: If I have https, do I need a VPN? - ZDNet

Encryption Vs. Decryption: What’s the Difference? – Techopedia

Applying encryption adds a level of security to the data that can help prevent the file contents from being understood by any unauthorized person who gets hold of it. Even if the data is accessed, it requires decryption to extract its meaning.

When more than one key is involved in the process, it's also possible to use to authenticate the sender. (Read Expert Feedback: What Data Encryption Advancements Should Businesses Be Aware Of?)

Encryption is the process of using an algorithm to transform information to make it unreadable for unauthorized users. Once the information is encoded, it requires decryption to be understood. (Read Encryption Just Isn't Enough: 3 Critical Truths About Data Security.)

Join nearly 200,000 subscribers who receive actionable tech insights from Techopedia.

Decryption is the process of transforming data that has been rendered unreadable through encryption back to its unencrypted form.

The encoded data reverts back to its original form, whether it contains texts or images, so that it makes sense to the human reader and/or the computer system. This process may be automated or be conducted manually.

Typically, there is a form of key involved. (Read 10 Best Practices for Encryption Key Management and Data Security.)

This eBook makes it easier than ever to get everything out of this powerful data tool. Free offer expires 2/18/2020.

CC BY-SA 3.0

A Scytale was what ancient Greeks used to make a simple transposition cipher. All it took was a strip of leather on which the letters were written and cylinder around which to wrap it. The sensitive data that was protected this way was likely centered around battle strategies. (Read Encryption Backdoors: The Achilles Heel to Cybersecurity?)

The encryption is the result of the letters being taken out of the order necessary to read and make sense of the message when they are unwrapped. In this case, the right cylinder functions as the key because it is what would get the letters properly aligned once the strip was wrapped once again.

The cylinder would be what is called a pre-shared key (PSK) in cryptography, that is a secret key that was shared ahead of the secret message being sent on it. Its letting the other party know what code the hidden message will be in. (Read Cryptography: Understanding Its Not-So-Secret Importance to Your Business.)

The Scytale method of encryption is the first one mentioned in A Brief History of Cryptological Systems, an instructive and entertaining read about strategies to prevent unauthorized people from reading secret message.

What may be the most famous stone in the world is housed in the British Museum. The museumss blog on the historic Rosetta Stone explains that Napoleons army found it in the Nile delta town for which it is named in 1799. At that time, no one had the capability to read hieroglyphs. It was a code with no key.

That is until scholars studied the Rosetta Stone. It opened the way to meaning through two components. One was that the same message was carved into in three languages, including Ancient Greek, which scholars could read.

The other was an identifiable cartouche that indicated which symbols stood for the name of the king Ptolemy.That was the basis of finding which of the 53 lines of Ancient Greek corresponded to the 14 lines of hieroglyphics and figure out the meaning of individual symbols.

It then took a couple of scholars 20 years to work it all out.

While the Rosetta Stone did function effectively as a decryption key, we need something easier to work with than a 1,680 pound rock for our everyday needs. The keys used in computer encryption are based on algorithms which scramble the plaintext data to render it into apparently random gibberish.

Applying the decryption key will put it back into understandable plaintext. There are different possible setups with single or double sets of keys.

Symmetric key encryption is based on algorithms that apply the same keys for both encryption and decryption. Its the same concept that worked for the Scytale in which the same size cylinder is used both to set the code and to rewrap the strips to make sense of the apparently random letters.

The same key that rendered the plaintext into ciphertext will turn the ciphertext back into plaintext In his blog, Panayotis Vryonis offers the analogy of locking something away in a box. The same key used to remove the contents from view is used to unlock the box and reveal them.

This is also sometimes called public key encryption. The name is a bit misleading because the asymmetry actually depends on having both a public and a private key. The public key is used to encrypt the message that is decrypted with the private key.

You can also encrypt data with the private key and have the receiver decrypted with the public key. The point is just that different keys are used for two functions.

Vryonis once again offers an image of a locked box to understand the concept: This lock has three states: A (locked), B (unlocked) and C (locked). And it has two separate (yes, two) keys. The first one can only turn clockwise (from A to B to C) and the second one can only turn anticlockwise (from C to B to A).

He names the one who locks it Anna, and she has an exclusive on one key the private key. The second key is the public one, which is copied and distributed.

So. Anna has her private key that can turn from A to B to C. And everyone else has her public-key that can turn from C to B to A. This opens up the possibility of locking up what you dont have the power to unlock.

"First of all, imagine you want to send Anna a very personal document. You put the document in the box and use a copy of her public-key to lock it. Remember, Annas public-key only turns anticlockwise, so you turn it to position A. Now the box is locked. The only key that can turn from A to B is Annas private key, the one shes kept for herself."

Anyone with the public key can make sure the box is locked, and only the person in possession of the private key can unlock it. Back to the world of algorithms, only the private key can decrypt what was encrypted by the public key. But it also has the possibility of allowing the public key to decrypt what was decrypt what was encrypted with the private key.

That opens up the possibility of attaching digital signatures, which Vryonis explains as follows:

"Someone delivers me this box and he says its from Anna. I dont believe him, but I pick Annas public-key from the drawer where I keep all the public-keys of my friends, and try it. I turn right, nothing. I turn left and the box opens! Hmm, I think. This can only mean one thing: the box was locked using Annas private key, the one that only she has.

In that scenario, the lock that is only possible from the private key guarantees that the sender is the one represented, which is the function of the digital signature. It would be like an unbroken seal on a letter formed by the persons signet ring used in the days of quill pens.

Accordingly, the asymmetric key offers more possible functions than the symmetric key system. Anyone with the public key can secure their data transmission to be decrypted only by the one in possession of the private key.

Plus anyone who receives data encrypted by the private key can trust the source. That preserves the integrity of the files and the validation of origin for digital communication, both of which are essential for functional and secure digital interactions.

See more here:
Encryption Vs. Decryption: What's the Difference? - Techopedia

Broadpeak Performs World-First Video Unified Packaging and Encryption of DASH and HLS – Multichannel News

CESSON-SEVIGNE, France Feb. 6, 2020 Broadpeak, a leading provider of content delivery network (CDN) and video streaming solutions for content providers and pay-TV operators worldwide, today announced that it has completed the world's first unified packaging and encryption of DASH and HLS formats. Using the latest version of its BkS350 origin packager, Broadpeak successfully delivered DASH and HLS video fragments using the same chunks (encrypted with CBCS) and container (CMAF) for both protocols, a unique capability that will optimize storage costs for OTT service providers.

Until CMAF was developed, HLS and DASH needed to be delivered in different containers. In addition, Apple FairPlay and Google Widevine used different encryption schemes (i.e., CBCS and CTR), creating the need for a different chunk for each streaming format (i.e., HLS and DASH) even with the new CMAF container. Now that Widevine allows CBCS encryption, it is possible to encrypt one CMAF fragment for both HLS and DASH formats. Broadpeak's BkS350 origin packager is the first solution to offer this capability.

"Today, OTT delivery can be costly in terms of network bandwidth and storage due to the multiplication of streaming formats. Service providers need to deliver video content in two entirely different packaging formats and two different encryption schemes in order to reach all devices," said Jacques Le Mancq, CEO at Broadpeak. "The BkS350 origin packager eliminates these issues and unifies video delivery by introducing a common video streaming scheme for several players. We're excited to share this innovation with our customers and support them in the optimization of their overall video streaming costs."

Broadpeak's BkS350 origin packager creates only one chunk for both HLS and DASH streams. CMAF is used as the packaging container format and CBCS as the encryption scheme. This powerful new solution reduces CDN storage costs while simplifying the headend and requiring fewer packaging resources.

The new version of Broadpeak's BkS350 origin packager that unifies HLS and DASH using CMAF and CBCS encryption provides several important benefits to OTT providers. Using the same amount of CDN storage, service providers can cache twice the amount of content. In addition, the cache hit ratio mechanically improves, allowing service providers to reduce the pressure on the output of the origin packager.

More information about Broadpeak solutions can be found at https://broadpeak.tv.

# # #

About Broadpeak (https://broadpeak.tv)Broadpeak designs and manufactures video delivery components for content providers and network service providers deploying IPTV, cable, OTT, and mobile services. Its portfolio of solutions and technologies powers the delivery of movies, television programming, and other video content over managed networks and the internet for viewing on any type of device. The company's systems and services help operators increase market share and improve subscriber loyalty with superior quality of experience.

Broadpeak supports all of its customers worldwide, from simple installations to large delivery systems reaching capacities of several million of simultaneous streams. The company is headquartered in Cesson-Sevigne, France.

All trademarks appearing herein are the property of their respective owners.

Link to Word Doc: http://www.202comms.com/Broadpeak/200206Broadpeak.docx

http://www.202comms.com/Broadpeak/Broadpeak-HLS_DASH.pngBroadpeak's BkS350 origin packager optimizes storage costs for OTT service providers by harmonizing HLS and DASH encryption and packaging

See more here:
Broadpeak Performs World-First Video Unified Packaging and Encryption of DASH and HLS - Multichannel News