安全与隐私cypherspace.org编辑精选
Lotus Notes 中的 NSA 后门密钥（2002）
NSA's Backdoor Key from Lotus Notes (2002)
2013 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇 2002 年的文章分析了 Lotus Notes 中一个被称为 'NSAKEY' 的嵌入密钥，探讨 NSA 是否在 Lotus Notes 的加密实现中留有后门。文章将这一发现与 1990 年代'加密战争'时期 NSA 对商业加密产品的干预联系起来。
为什么经久不衰：它记录了加密战争时代政府与商业加密之间争议的第一手案例，在斯诺登事件后反复被重新发掘，对理解后门与透明度问题至今仍有现实意义。
HN 评论精选
Lotus Notes 创始人 Ray Ozzie 亲自回应：当年 NSA 密钥一事是公开透明的，与如今的政府秘密监控形成对比。
我是 Ray Ozzie。关于'minitruth'——在压力之下总得保持点幽默感。那是很久以前的事了，但我们当年的努力与近来新闻报道中所描述的情况，一个明显区别就是透明度问题。Notes 发布'差异化工作因子'实现的那天，我在 RSA 大会上做主题演讲，公开说明我们做了什么以及为什么。为我工作的优秀密码学家 Charlie Kaufman 也发布了他撰写的技术细节论文。如果你想真正了解加密战争时期是什么样子，去读 Steven Levy 的《Crypto》。回到现在——看到民选官员管理政府如此缺乏透明度，令我痛心。当然，普通人也明白进行小规模秘密行动确实需要保密，我们理解这一点。但同样显而易见的是，任何复杂的大规模长期行动最终都会曝光，因此任何可能被视为影响宪法权利的广泛行动，都应接受广泛的公开辩论……
rozzie查看英文原文
Ray Ozzie here. Regarding "minitruth" - you've got to maintain a bit of a sense of humor when things get stressful. It was such a long time ago, but one thing that clearly differentiates our efforts in those days vs. what's been reported in the news in the past few days is the issue of transparency. The day we shipped the "differential workfactor" implementation in Notes, I keynoted the RSA Conference and gave a speech laying out what we did and why. Charlie Kaufman, a great cryptographer who worked for me, also distributed a paper he wrote with the technical details. You can find my speech and his paper buried in here if you're interested. (search for "lotus.notes") http://web.textfiles.com/ezines/HWA/hwa-hn19.txt And if you're really motivated to understand what it was like during the Crypto Wars, go read Steven Levy's book "Crypto". http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/books/crypto Back to the present - it pains me to see such a lack of transparency in how our elected officials are running our government. Of course, the common man knows it's common sense that there's an inherent need for secrecy in conducting small scale covert operations. We do get it. However, it's also common sense that it's inevitable that any complex large-scale long-term operation will ultimately come to light. And so it's just common sense that any such broad-based operations that might be perceived as impacting our constitutional rights should be the subject of broad public debate. No, not when they're being prototyped or tested or used in small scale settings - but definitely somewhere on the path from "tactical use" to "broad strategic dependence". These are not small issues, nor need they be at all partisan. Wyden, Paul, and others are trying. Theses issues are fundamental to defining the relationship between us citizens and our government in the decades ahead. In particular, in this world where "SaaS" and "software eats everything" and "cloud computing" and "big data" are inevitable and already pervasive, it pains me to see how 3rd Party Doctrine may now already be being leveraged to effectively gut the intent of U.S. citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Don't we need a common-sense refresh to the wording of our laws and potentially our constitution as it pertains to how we now rely upon 3rd parties? It makes zero sense in a "services age" where granting third parties limited rights to our private information is so basic and fundamental to how we think, work, conduct and enjoy life. For example, did you really intend to yield your 4th amendment rights when you granted a 3rd party access to your files as a part of Mac Software Update, Windows Update, Virus Scanners, etc., or when you started using a service-tethered smartphone? Anyway, unlike 'web tracking' issues which seem to be broadly ignored because of our love for ad-supported services, I hope we all (especially the young readers of reddit, hackernews, etc) wake up to the fact that these privacy and transparency issues are REAL, and that they truly will impact you and the country you live in, and that even if you don't consider yourself an activist you really should get informed and form an opinion. Again, this is a non-partisan issue, and let's all work to ensure that it stays this way. Two great organizations where you can learn are EPIC and EFF. (Disclosure: I am on the board of EPIC.) Take it in, and think. Your contributions are needed and would of course be quite welcome. http://epic.org http://eff.org
抛开加密争议，Lotus Notes 其实是最成功的本地优先/离线优先应用平台，其能力在今天仍属前沿。
我认为 Lotus Notes 有一段迷人的历史，暂且不谈加密方面的争议。据我所知，它至今仍是应用最广泛的'离线优先'/'本地优先'应用平台，具备多主文档复制、高度可配置的冲突解决和快速应用开发能力。在拨号上网时代这些是革命性的功能。电子邮件客户端只是它在企业防火墙之外最广为人知的群件应用而已。最初的愿景非常宏大：'Notes 应该在思想处理器、文本数据库和超文本系统领域迈出重要的第一步。'我很想看到为现代打造的开源等价物能带我们走向何方……（CouchDB 曾做过不错的尝试！）
refset查看英文原文
I think Lotus Notes has a fascinating history, cryptographic shenanigans asides. As far as I'm aware it is still the most successful "offline first" / "local-first" application platform in widespread use today, complete with multi-master document replication, highly-configurable conflict resolution and rapid application development. These were revolutionary capabilities during the dialup era. The email client just happens to be the most popularly recognised groupware application outside of individual corporate firewalls. The original vision was very lofty: https://web.archive.org/web/20180225100127/http://www.kapor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Notes-Project.pdf "Notes should take the first major crack at the area of idea processors, textual databases, and hypertext systems." I would love to see where an open source equivalent built for the modern age could take us... (CouchDB gave it a good shot!)
一线开发者的亲历：Notes 强大超前但质量粗糙，其内置能力至今仍胜过许多现代框架。
我也得说说对 Lotus Notes 又爱又恨的感受。我从 98 年开始用它。它能让你快速构建功能完善且安全的工作流应用，比在其他平台上画线框图还快，我成功地向数千名用户推广了它，其视野确实超前。但性能平庸，还有很多糟糕的疏漏——常常想实现某个基础操作时发现'此路不通'，比如全局日历同步或横向打印这类基本需求。我至今仍每天用它运行一个大型行业应用，十年来运行无误。而当我用 React 甚至 Rails 编写新东西时，却失望地发现不得不重新发明 Notes 20 年前就内置的功能。
wpskidd查看英文原文
I have to chime in that I too have a love/hate relationship with Lotus Notes. I started using it back in ‘98. It was massively empowering to build functional and secure workflow apps, and do so faster than you could wireframe on other platforms. I rolled it out to thousands of users successfully. It was truly visionary in scope. However, the performance was mediocre and there were many really poor oversights and omissions. Often I would go to program some base operation and find out you just “can’t get there from here“. It seemed their QC process hadn’t really given much though to global calendar synchronization or to very basic needs like printing landscape. I still use it daily for a large (funeral) industry specific app. and it has run flawlessly for a decade (albeit making API calls to MS Office and the web). I go to program new things in React or even Rails and am disappointed that you have to reinvent things that were built into Notes 20 yrs ago.
提出阴谋论式的怀疑难以证伪：嵌入'NSA 密钥'也可能是栽赃陷害的完美犯罪。
如果我是一个想损害雇主声誉的程序员，我会在软件里嵌入一个密钥，让软件看起来像是在把所有用户数据发送给 NSA。任何否认都会遭遇'好吧，肯定有秘密法律让你们否认'。完美的犯罪……
jrockway查看英文原文
If I were a programmer that wanted to damage the reputation of my employer, I'd embed a key in its software that made it look like the software was sending all user data to the NSA. Any denial would meet "well, there's a secret law making you deny it". The perfect crime...
历次讨论
同类还值得读
非法素数
Illegal prime
维基百科条目，介绍“非法素数”：某些素数之所以被称为“非法”，是因为它们经特定编码后，恰好对应一段被法律禁止传播的数据——最著名的是 DVD 解密程序 DeCSS 的代码，有人把…
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2010–2021en.wikipedia.org编辑精选关于 /dev/urandom 的常见误区
Myths about /dev/urandom
（Thomas Hühn 撰写，2014 年首发并持续更新）逐条反驳关于 /dev/urandom 的常见误解：它与 /dev/random 使用的是同一个 CSPRNG，一旦完…
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2014–20202uo.de编辑精选AES 高级加密标准火柴人图解
A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
一篇用火柴人漫画形式讲解 AES（高级加密标准）算法的经典科普文章。
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022moserware.com编辑精选指纹是用户名，不是密码
Fingerprints are Usernames, not Passwords
作者（eCryptfs 维护者、Ubuntu 安全工程师）认为指纹等生物特征是公开、不可更改的标识，应视作用户名而非密码，不能当作秘密凭据用于认证。
安全与隐私上首页 4 次 · 2013–2017blog.dustinkirkland.comHTTPS 连接的最初几毫秒（2009）
The First Few Milliseconds of an HTTPS Connection (2009)
逐毫秒拆解一次 HTTPS 连接建立时发生了什么，重点讲 TLS 握手、证书验证、RSA 签名与密钥协商等机制，面向不熟悉该领域的读者。
安全与隐私上首页 4 次 · 2009–2020moserware.com编辑精选