Europe mulls open sourcing TETRA emergency services' encryption algorithms

The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) may open source the proprietary encryption algorithms used to secure emergency radio communications after a public backlash over security flaws found this summer. "The ETSI Technical Committee in charge of TETRA algorithms is discussing whether to make them public," …

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem?

I can understand the paranoia in some quarters about listening to encrypted emergency services comms. But what's the problem?

Until tetra in the late 90's, all but a few emergency services transmissions were broadcast in clear analogue radio channels.

The fire brigade used frequencies in the FM broadcast band for years (1960-80's), and any FM radio could pick them up.

The police used channels in mid VHF (around 150Mhz) which were not hard to pick up for anyone suitably interested.

Off the shelf radio scanners have been around since the mid 70's. Before that general coverage VHF receivers had been around since WW2.

Why, all of a sudden, are they paranoid about being listened to?

[DS999]

Re: Problem?

They would always have preferred it be impossible for the public to listen in, but they didn't have a choice before. Beyond the nefarious reasons that I'm sure could be listed, it makes it easier for criminals e.g. robbing a bank if they know that the cops have been called and are on their way. Someone holding hostages would benefit from listening in the police and know what they are planning, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Problem?

Probably the no1 reason was that "news" reporters would just follow police and ambulance around...

In any case, all this stuff is recorded for use in court, so they should probably encrypt properly. At least for the privacy of the public whose addresses and alleged crimes get read out.

[SketchyScot]

Re: Problem?

Being able to listen in makes it too easy for criminals to plan work and then listen out for the police getting on to them to make their getaway. Drug dealers would suddenly all be kitted out with the ability to listen in to evade being caught in the act.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Problem?

Drug dealers would suddenly all be kitted out with the ability to listen in to evade being caught in the act.

Drugs also could be legalised.

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: Problem?

Because substances that are highly addictive and destroy people's lives (and negatively affects the people around them too) should be freely available to the population.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Problem?

should be freely available to the population.

They are freely available and they will always be. It's time to grow up and face the reality.

[John Robson]

Re: Problem?

I rather suspect you want certain drugs legalised rather than all drugs.

There will always be something illegal available, and the dealers in that would benefit in the same way drug dealers would.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Problem?

The more dangerous drug the more in our interest for it to be legal.

For instance, people who use heroin die because of accidental overdose (you can't tell the strength of what dealer is selling as they don't have any quality control, labelling) or contaminants (e.g. dealer mixed Fentanyl poorly). It's more difficult to hold anyone responsible for "bad batch" and people have more difficulties to seek help, rarely from the drug use itself.

[John Robson]

Re: Problem?

Quite - that doesn't mean that all drugs should be legalised though (and obviously there is a wide category of what "legal" actually represents).

[Korev]

Re: Problem?

Because substances that are highly addictive and destroy people's lives (and negatively affects the people around them too) should be freely available to the population.

Like this one?

[tiggity]

Re: Problem?

@A Non e-mouse

As a UK based person I note that products with alcohol, nicotine, caffeine are all legal and freely available

All highly addictive and with live destroying potential to various degrees*

Different countries have different rules, in some places various narcotics that are banned in the UK are decriminalized (or in rare cases, even legal)

e.g in the EU, plenty of positive results from the Portugese approach (not just relaxing the laws but a holistic approach to also address drug related health & social issues)

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight#:~:text=Many%20impacts%20of%20reform%20were,to%20be%20put%20into%20context.

* You may scoff at caffeine being life destroying, but excessive caffeine intake can cause a lot of health issues (mental & physical) - like many coffee drinkers I hope my caffeine intake stays below a damaging level, but you never know.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Problem?

Now imagine if coffee or alcohol was illegal.

[jmch]

Re: Problem?

"substances that are highly addictive and destroy people's lives (and negatively affects the people around them too)" already ARE freely available to the population, as long as you're 18 (in some cases 16), or can pass as that age, or bribe some wino to get them for you.

Most of the "destroy people's lives (and negatively affects the people around them too)" don't come directly from the drugs, they come from the prohibition, which means that instead of high-quality drugs of known potency delivered by a reputable company and/or dispensed by a medical professional*, many drug users end up buying drugs of unknown potency cut with whatever crap the dealers can get away with mixing in, having to associate with criminals in order to get their fix.

Addiction is definitely not a good thing, but we now half half a century of evidence that drug prohibition doesn't work, added on to a couple of previous decades' experience that alcohol prohibition doesn't work. If drugs were regulated and taxed in the same way that alcohol is, it wouldn't solve all of the problems, but it would certainly alleviate many of them.

*This was the status quo in the first half of the 20th century, and there was a notable lack of drug cartels, wars against drugs, drug killings, overdoses etc etc

[Anonymous Coward]

> Drugs also could be legalised

Better be legalized indeed. But in a drinkable form.

This is similar to alcohol, which is harder to overdose than concentrated forms because of volume consumption. Also such drugs can have special additives for easy detection by traffic police, for example.

So you would go to a bar, and ask for a reasonably dosed drink of ecstasy or cocaine. Then large scale medical research can be conducted to find the optimal concentration and harm. This could also spur innovation to prevent addiction OR just market alternative non-addictive stimulants with similar effects to cocaine etc - the same way Pharma does with other meds.

Most importantly this may finally end up with majority of illegal drugs and related organized crime. Some countries will transform to much safer places. The end to corruption etc.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Problem?

As others have said, it made it too easy for the boys in striped vests and domino masks.

There are numerous period pieces being shown on, eg, Talking Pictures TV (Freeview) where the getaway driver is shown listening to the police on a portable trannie, two flashes means tools down, keep quiet until the patrol goes past...

[Andre Carneiro]

Re: Problem?

I suspect data privacy has become far stricter since then. AINAL but I wonder if these organisations would be liable for data privacy breaches with some of the information that used to be broadcast in the clear 20 or 30 years ago…

[elsergiovolador]

Bag

Is it about encryption or whether tax payers paid for a pile of rubbish and they want to cover up?

If they think security by obscurity is the way to go, why are they not sacked already?

[alain williams]

They were kept secret ... why ?

It is well established that encryption algorithms should be published so that people can try to break them. This is a form of peer review - to a larger set of experts than the ones that you employ. If what you encrypt is valuable to someone the algorithm will be obtained anyway by opponents with deep enough pockets to bribe or blackmail the right people.

Keep the keys/passwords secret of course.

Strength in an encryption system must not rely on secret algorithms.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: They were kept secret ... why ?

I see you are attempting logical reasoning, while encrypted communications is a matter of security

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: They were kept secret ... why ?

According to Wikipedia, TETRA was designed in the 90s - a time when keeping encryption methods secret was the norm. Declassifying anything always takes time. These flaws in the system may be the catalyst for that change.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: They were kept secret ... why ?

But back then you were normally keeping them secret to hide the deliberate weakness

[Spanners]

"used in Europe, the UK, and other countries"

We may have "left" the EU but we have not actually moved the physical location of the UK.

We are in Europe.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: "used in Europe, the UK, and other countries"

You haven't seen the new map?

We are now in the new continent of Great Britainia

[Anonymous Coward]

Five vulnerabilities uncovered in TETRA?

Look it, it is illegal to manufacture a communications system in the EU that cannot be back-doored. “There is no privacy. Get over it”

“Matthew Green .. said keeping algorithms secret is a dated idea that makes problems worse.”

"Transparency is at the root of ETSI, in our governance and technical work."

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Five vulnerabilities uncovered in TETRA?

Including speaking Welsh ?