3 ms·
Original article by Frederic Jacobs: https://gist.github.com/FredericJacobs/b1b518125b7066880359 https://gist.github.com/FredericJacobs/b1b518125b7066880359
by ge0rg 11y ago
Original article by Frederic Jacobs: https://gist.github.com/FredericJacobs/b1b518125b7066880359 https://gist.github.com/FredericJacobs/b1b518125b7066880359
- dang 11y agoGood catch. We've changed the URL from http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/reverse-engineering-proves-journalist-security-app-unsafe http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/reverse-engineering-p.... If anyone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change that too.
- danso 11y agoI actually think the original URL is worth pointing to, because it gives the social context of the app. In the gist here, there is no link back to the VICE story that preceded it [1]...so we're left with an autopsy of a crappy app...but, IMO, it's more interesting how and why such a crappy app was allowed to go into production, and for whom. In this case, the technical details are less interesting than the overview: that an app designed to protect reporters' sources is inexplicably talking to Google Analytics and Twitter. The lack of transparency had been noted by VICE in its earlier story. Not attacking the gist...just wanting to point out that the VICE article is not merely blogspam. [1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-new-secure-app-for-journalists-may-not-be-secure-at-all http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-new-secure-app-for-jou...