The lawsuit claimed that the students’ planned presentation would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by enabling others to defraud the MBTA of transit fares. A different federal judge, meeting in a special Saturday session, ordered the trio not to disclose for ten days any information that could be used by others to get free subway rides.

“The judge today correctly found that it was unlikely that the CFAA would apply to security researchers giving an academic talk,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “A presentation at a security conference is not some sort of computer intrusion. It’s protected speech and vital to the free flow of information about computer security vulnerabilities. Silencing researchers does not improve security — the vulnerability was there before the students discovered it and would remain in place regardless of whether the students publicly discussed it or not.”

This sets a good precedent for future cases, and perhaps next time a similar situation arises, a judge will not be so quick to issue a gag order. It’s not a happy ending yet though, as the original lawsuit is still in effect.

As Chris Wysopal pointed out last week, the MBTA’s ire is misdirected. Rather than suing the vendor who sold them the defective system, they sued and attempted to silence the students who discovered the weakness. This is 2008, not 1988 — did they honestly think a gag order would prevent the information from reaching the general public? The DEFCON presentation was already available on the Intertubes prior to the injunction being issued, and the MBTA attorneys included a copy of the confidential whitepaper with their filing, thereby making it public.

I guess you wouldn’t expect that a transit authority would have paid any attention to theCiscogate fiasco from a few years ago. That presentation never got out either, did it? All that taxpayer money the MBTA spent on ridiculous lawsuits and restraining orders could have been put toward fixing the security flaws. What a concept.

Doesn’t this seem backwards to you? Shouldn’t the MBTA be suing the vendor who sold them the flawed system? Security problems go away by mandating independant security testing before a product is accepted, not by trying to get security researchers to be quiet. This is a good example of how the reactive approach doesn’t work. The flaws are still in the system and suing researchers has just shined a bright light on them.

Update 08/09/2008 6:00pm EST:

The EFF is appealing the injunction which is blocking the students from speaking about the results of their testing.

A telling quote from Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney at the EFF gets to the heart of the issue:

“Courts have found that the First Amendment covers these things. We believe that this is a protected speech activity. When you discuss security issues, if you are telling the truth, that is something that should be protected.”

Apparently the MBTA has known about this problem since at least March, 2008 when a graduate student from the University of Virginia announced he was able to break the encryption system.

The U of VA researcher gave an interview where he described why security by obscurity is not a valid security approach for a cryptosystem:

Q: What are your thoughts on security by obscurity? Is NXP using this method of protection?

A: Security-through-obscurity hardly ever works. The lack of proper peer-review often even hurts the security of the system. Our Mifare work discovered several vulnerabilities that could be fixed without increasing the cost of the cards. NXP did for a long time rely on obscurity for the security of some of their products, but now decided against this outdated design approach and instead bases the security of newer RFID cards on publicly scrutinized cryptography and independent evaluations.

Q: Can you explain “Kerckhoffs Principle” and why it applies to your work?

A: Kerchoff, who lived in the 19th century, observed that keeping anything secret is really hard. So instead of relying on the secrecy of your whole system, it would a lot easier to only rely on the secrecy of a small secret key. Security systems should hence be publicly known and analyzed, and only the key should be secret. When properly realised for RFID cards, Kerchoff’s principle means that by analyzing their own cards, thieves cannot compromise your cards. This is contrary to our Mifare work, where we only analyzed a few copies of the the secret algorithm that is found in all cards and were consequently able affect the security of all the other billion cards out there.

The MBTA not only accepted a security system which relied on security by obscurity but once accepting this flawed model must try to maintain this obscurity with the court system.

The documents detailing the presentation are here.

I was reading an article in Information Week tonight about a case going to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals about the governments right to search, seize and copy laptops and other electronic devices at our borders.  Two groups that don't often find themselves on the same side of issues, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) have filed briefs with the court asking them to strike down a lower courts ruling that granted the government these broad powers to confiscate laptops.

As the article points out here in the US there was quite an uproar about China "slurping" laptops from people on travel there, but we seem to think it is OK for our government to do it.  Well at least our government is telling people they are doing it.  What they are not telling us is what they are doing with the data after they search or copy it.  How do we know, no US security but nevertheless confidential data is being secured and or destroyed promptly?  The government telling us "trust me" just doesn't cut it.

However, I think technology is going to pose a bigger problem for the government regardless of whether the court upholds the governments position. I think any terrorist or other bad guy would never have confidential data on their laptop that is not encrypted.  In fact with full disk encryption coming to the masses from the likes of McAfee and others, what will the government do?  Sure they can take the encrypted data to the NSA and let them brute force the keys, but that sounds impractical.  Perhaps, the TSA will demand encryption vendors to put in a back door or secret key that will allow the TSA to decrypt the data similar to what they do with the special luggage locks now.

I know what they can do. Perhaps they can go back to Checkpoint and find out for sure about those back doors that they always suspected was in their software and see if it is there for sure. If so the government can appoint Checkpoint the official encryption vendor for laptops ;-)  Just kidding of course, but really guys.  What self-respecting bad guy is not going to encrypt their data knowing the government has a right to search their laptop.  I think it makes this whole case much ado about nothing.