Hadopi's Secret Internet Spying Spec Leaked
from the now-doesn't-that-make-you-feel-good dept
As a part of France's three strikes law, the organization in charge of implementing the program, Hadopi (which, we should remind you, was caught infringing itself in using a font it did not license for its logo), has been tasked with figuring out a way to actually block people from the internet, or to stop them from using certain file sharing programs. While there were public consultations on how to do this, the actual technical spec was supposed to have been kept secret. Not surprisingly, that didn't last very long. Glyn Moody points us to the news that the tool's spec has leaked. Basically, it's your everyday snooping software, that will monitor all internet traffic, including searching through files on your computer, and checking the router configuration. It will also act as a creepy form of Big Brother, with an alert system which, if it notices you using a file sharing program, says things like: "You are about to download a file using a P2P protocol - do you want to continue?" One hopes that it would include a button that says "Yes, Dammit, I'm Downloading Linux" or something of the sort, but that seems unlikely. The link above also notes that this appears to violate EU law, which prohibits a "general obligation to monitor."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
once again....
Thank you mike for all the wonderful articles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Encrypted everything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@4
install this .....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Encrypted everything
Didn't the RSA algorithm used to be considered an "Ammunition", and, therefore, illegal? It has happened before and surely will happen again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And of course that leads to an escalation where people are genning their own certificates. Creating their own VPN's. and an all out nuclear war of encryption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
About half of whats in ACTA violates EU law. Which it why it is so easy to screw with it. Read a section of ACTA. Read EU law. Contact the correct office via e-mail, express your concerns and ask for clarification, CC a bunch of people in the press, watchdog groups, and rights organizations. Like magic people take notice, and unlike the US people actually do something.
3 strikes, ISP monitoring of citizens, high fines, disconnection from the internet, criminalization of infringement, searches of iPods and mp3 players, etc, will all be struck down by the EU courts. Agreements to do any of these things between rights holders and ISP's will also be struck down.
In the beginning the only countries that ACTA will affect are Canada, Australia, America, South Korea, and Mexico. In South Korea, Australia, and Canada the level of internet access and communications will scare politicians into dumping or not enforcing large sections of ACTA. Piss off 80% of the population and you dont get re-elected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
About half of whats in ACTA violates EU law. Which it why it is so easy to screw with it. Read a section of ACTA. Read EU law. Contact the correct office via e-mail, express your concerns and ask for clarification, CC a bunch of people in the press, watchdog groups, and rights organizations. Like magic people take notice, and unlike the US people actually do something.
3 strikes, ISP monitoring of citizens, high fines, disconnection from the internet, criminalization of infringement, searches of iPods and mp3 players, etc, will all be struck down by the EU courts. Agreements to do any of these things between rights holders and ISP's will also be struck down.
In the beginning the only countries that ACTA will affect are Canada, Australia, America, South Korea, and Mexico. In South Korea, Australia, and Canada the level of internet access and communications will scare politicians into dumping or not enforcing large sections of ACTA. Piss off 80% of the population and you dont get re-elected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Encrypted everything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Irrelevant. A Certificate Authority is never handed more than a *public* key (In a PKCS#10 Certificate Request). Once they assert you are who you claim to be, the PKCS#10 cert req is signed and the appropriate X.509 certificate is sent back to the requestor.
No - I repeat - NO *private key* is ever sent to the CA - and the CA is no more capable of decyphering encrypted traffic than anybody else having access to the Public key - which as its name implies - is public and does not need to be hidden.
The sole role of the CA is to assert (with its own signature - signed with their OWN private key) that the private key owner of a Public Key present in a X.509 cert is indeed the entity present in the X.509 cert (usually the CN field).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or you are one of those people who still think 'trusted' certificates are really more secure? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But if your IP is "seen" by the "Hadopi dogs", you can be charged for illegal use of a P2P software, or maybe downloading from Rapidshare.... You are done.
You don't have the possibility to discuss even if you were downloading the latest Linux distro , once your IP caught, your ISP has 15 days to give all your personals details to the Hadopi.
Then, without any lawyer or court, your Internet will be cut for a year, and you will receive a fine from € 45.000 to € 300.000 !!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Private Products already do it transparently see:
http://www.m86security.com/products/web_security/m86-web-filter.asp
it spoofs certs to watch https traffic.
This is commercially available to anyone with $$$ and governments have plenty of those.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is this even possible?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
People have been saying this for a long time. Show me at least one certificate, signed by one of these CAs, which does not belong to the entity named in the certificate, and which was being used for MITM attacks.
Even better, post it to Mozilla's bug tracker - it will cause them to seriously consider removing that CA from the trusted list. The story will be picked by Slashdot and the rest of the tech media, and everybody will know.
Or, in simpler words: pics or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Anyone can make a self-signed certificate which says "yes, I am www.example.com, honest". Only one of the hundreds of trusted CAs can make a signed certificate which says "I certify the one with the private key corresponding to this public key is www.example.com".
Still not as secure as it should be (hundreds of CAs can make one), but much more secure than self-signed certificates (anyone can make one).
Of course, both protect against passive interception; the difference matters only for active attacks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Is this even possible?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freenet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Is this even possible?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What would Hadopi would do at this case? Will it punish me or the Ip's Burglar?
In the case of ACTA, I'm in the understanding that if someone uses your wi-fi connection without asking permission, they will punish you.
Let's hope Hadopi and Acta soon die...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, the M86 filter is pretty powerful. I know some guys in IT for a big company, and it can do some amazing (and scary) stuff, especially if it's being used with the M86 Security Reporter
[ link to this | view in thread ]