NIST

From Wikispooks
Jump to: navigation, search
Group.png NIST   History Commons WebsiteRdf-icon.png
NIST.png
HeadquartersGaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.
Leaders• Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology
• NIST/Director
Staff2,900
SubpageNIST/Director
Now infamous for their attempt to cover-up the truth of the 9-11 controlled demolitions.

September 11th, 2001

In 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act mandated NIST to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 and the 47-storey 7 World Trade Center. The point man for the "World Trade Center Collapse Investigation" has been named as Stephen Cauffman‎ and the lead investigator WAS Shyam Sunder,[1] covered three aspects, including a technical building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause of the collapses of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7.

NIST blocked release of various videos about 9/11. In response to FOIA requests they later released videos, including video about firefighters discussing explosives in the WTC.[2] They also released video[Why?] in 2010 showing Michael Hess calling from the 8th floor of WTC7.

Models

NIST reportedly created models of the WTC, used to conclude that the buildings were destroyed by fire, not explosives. However, it refuses to release much information about them, citing "national security".[3] What little information they did release has been termed "perturbing and inexplicable".[4]

Compromised cryptography

NIST is responsible for standardising cryptographic algorithms and standardised Dual_EC_DRBG, which already by 2004 was understood by some researchers to have a possible kleptographic backdoor in its design, with the unusual property that it was theoretically impossible for anyone but Dual_EC_DRBG's designers (NSA) to confirm the backdoor's existence. Bruce Schneier concluded shortly after standardization that the "rather obvious" backdoor (along with other deficiencies) would mean that nobody would use Dual_EC_DRBG.[5] The backdoor would allow NSA to decrypt for example SSL/TLS encryption which used Dual_EC_DRBG as a CSPRNG.[6]

Snowden's revelations

In December 2013, a Reuters news article alleged that in 2004, before NIST had standardized Dual_EC_DRBG, NSA paid RSA Security $10 million in a secret deal to use Dual_EC_DRBG as the default in the RSA BSAFE cryptography library, which resulted in RSA Security becoming the most important distributor of the insecure algorithm.[7] RSA denied ever knowingly colluded with the NSA to adopt an algorithm that was known to be flawed, saying "we have never kept [our] relationship [with the NSA] a secret".[8]


 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
File:NIST Analyses Brookman.pdfpaper26 March 2010Ronald Brookman
File:Nanothermite Smoking Gun.pdfarticle18 August 2009Michael SchmidtAn introduction to the nano-thermite issue and how the "investigators" chose to ignore this aspect.
File:The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.pdfpaper2 July 2008Kevin RyanAn examination of NIST's connections to the nano-thermite.


References

  1. Eric Lipton (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times.

    Template-specific style sheet:

  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
  3. http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
  4. https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/17/why-did-nist-decide-wtc-steel-could-not-conduct-heat/
  5. Bruce Schneier (2007-11-15). "Did NSA Put a Secret Backdoor in New Encryption Standard?". Wired News. Archived from the original on 2014-06-21.

    Template-specific style sheet:

  6. Matthew Green. "The Many Flaws of Dual_EC_DRBG".

    Template-specific style sheet:

  7. Menn, Joseph (December 20, 2013). "Exclusive: Secret contract tied NSA and security industry pioneer". San Francisco. Reuters. Retrieved December 20, 2013.

    Template-specific style sheet:

  8. The Security Division of EMC, RSA,. "RSA Response to Media Claims Regarding NSA Relationship". RSA. Retrieved 22 December 2013.

    Template-specific style sheet: