5 ms·

There isn't a working secure messaging now. GPG+email has UX problems meaning BFU's will never use it. Signal is bound to Google, and Moxie's views on corpora

by glogla 11y ago

There isn't a working secure messaging now. GPG+email has UX problems meaning BFU's will never use it. Signal is bound to Google, and Moxie's views on corporate control and calling getting applications from somewhere else than Google "going back to the old broken desktop security model" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Telegram has broken crypto, doesn't ecrypt by default and the authors being arrogant about their broken crypto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Whatsapp and iMessage are closed source, so they are completely unverifiable. There isn't secure messaging tool that can be widely used as of now. I know not many people are good enough with crypto to be able to reliably write one, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Being able to communicate easily and securely is very very very important and should be part of basic infrastructure by now.

gambiting 11y ago
In my personal opinion: if you want to communicate securely, with a very low probability of eavesdropping - use voice chat in any of modern games, on any platform. On both PS4 and X1, voice chat communication has to be encrypted(it's a compliance requirement), but at the same time there is no requirement that you have to implement a server relay - so a lot of games don't bother doing it, and it's a straight up P2P mesh implementation. You have encrypted, P2P traffic, not stored anywhere, that you can create an anonymous account to use.
- random778 11y ago
  http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/133488739430/is-playstation-4-network-traffic-especially http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/133488739430/is-playstat... It seems that PS4 encryption is broken.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    Yep, but pretty much all games implement their own voip, in addition to system chat(Party Chat) - and while system chat can be forced to relay through MS/Sony servers, custom implementations in games do not have this requirement. They can also use different encryption to the system one.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  As a game developer I can tell you that safeguards are i place to bypass this encryption.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I am also a game developer, and I have recently been working on implementing a voip system in a game. Sony/X1 requires you to use an "approved" encryption scheme, but they don't actually require you to store the key with them, or implement a server relay(which would allow them to intercept all traffic easily).
    - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      I did not implement VOIP on PS4 but I know for a fact that on 360 and XB1 the encryption for VOIP data can be entirely disabled. In case of XB1 they make you provide files to strip the voip stream from the rest of your game packets for this very reason.
chaitanya 11y ago
> Signal is bound to Google, and Moxie's views on corporate control and calling getting applications from somewhere else than Google "going back to the old broken desktop security model" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. When you say its bound to Google, do you mean that users rely on play store to get Signal, or something else?
- epimenov 11y ago
  I think it means that push notifications are delivered via google cloud platform
  - feld 11y ago
    And the concern is that Google has a backdoor into your phone Easy solution: don't buy android
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      ...and buy Apple instead? Or just go back to featurephones? I don't see any good answers in the cellphone market.
- luxflux 11y ago
  It would be nice to find Signal on F-Droid for those of us who'd rather not be a part of the Google ecosystem.
  - Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
    There is an F-droid repo somewhere of a fork that uses websockets. Of course not embraced by the Signal team, but from what I gather it works most of the time. Sometimes getting messages can be a bit wonky, though.
eggie 11y ago
> Telegram has broken crypto, doesn't ecrypt by default and the authors being arrogant about their broken crypto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. As a lay-person in this space, could you explain what's wrong with their crypto? Have their recent competitions not addressed Moxie's concerns? Would you be more comfortable if they published their server code (as they keep promising to do...)? Their arrogance and will to power is rather mild in comparison to that of the people running Facebook and its properties. I'm happy not to see ads based on my private chats.
the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> Telegram has broken crypto, doesn't ecrypt by default and the authors being arrogant about their broken crypto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I find this "because it's not 100% standard crypto it's broken" mentality here questionable. Surely innovation can happen in the crypto space without having to be signed off by the usual suspects? Last time I checked Telegram's crypto was not broken. Of course it does not end to end encrypt by default. Most people do not want that given the disadvantages this has in the user experience.
- epimenov 11y ago
  This is absolutely dangerous thinking. There are a lot of people researching crypto and making sure it's secure. If you're using non-standard crypto, you don't have that safety net. They're using primitives that are proven to be insecure against certain types of attacks (non-checked DH, MAC-then-encrypt, etc). And their code seems to be not perfect (https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582916365750669312 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58291636575066931...). Signal on the other hand uses a variant of OTR (https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/). Which was thoroughly reviewed, and mentioned in NSA documents as not-cracked. You can't just invent something and claim "last time I checked it's not broken". It's not broken (yet) if enough competent eyes looked at it, and the more standard building blocks you use, the easier to make those claims. That is absolutely not what Telegram does. I really wish the myth that Telegram is secure would die.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > This is absolutely dangerous thinking. There are a lot of people researching crypto and making sure it's secure. If you're using non-standard crypto, you don't have that safety net. Absolutely dangerous thinking is to declare cryptography off limits. With that in mind eventually you just scare more people to participate in this process and eventually be left with a tiny core community. And this discussion is very moot anyways as telegram uses standard cryptographic primitives. > They're using primitives that are proven to be insecure against certain types of attacks (non-checked DH, MAC-then-encrypt, etc). Except they are not using them in any insecure way and they are doing this for very good reasons. This Twitter thread is also full of misinformation collected together from an age old post that was itself misunderstanding how the protocol actually works. > You can't just invent something and claim "last time I checked it's not broken". Sure, that's exactly how SSL works. We invented crypto systems and we are using them until they are broken, then we phase them out for something else.
biokoda 11y ago
> are closed source, so they are completely unverifiable. They can still be verified by third parties if Whatsapp/iMessage wanted to do it. No company can satisfy security purists, because they can't make a living out of it. We have a secure messaging/voip app. Verified by a third party (they have the entire source code). We use the same protocol signal uses (Axolotl ratchet). You can install applications without app/play store and you can run the server on-premise on your own infrastructure. No google services are needed. But all of that will still not be acceptable by "the community", because we are closed source and charge a license fee.
dTal 11y ago
There isn't one with traction. SMSSecure is a fork of Textsecure (Signal before it changed names) that drops all internet features and focuses on SMS only. So there's no Google dependency at all, and you get all of Moxie's crypto chops with none of his wacky views (it's on GPlay and F-Droid, with no fuss). I use it as my main SMS app, and so do a few of my (non-technical) friends and family. It really does just work. The only downside is that nobody knows it exists. So it's hard to get people to use it, and it doesn't get the eyeballs it deserves.
kobayashi 11y ago
What do you mean Signal is bound to Google? Also, iMessage is not "completely unverifiable". In fact, there has been much work put in to reverse engineering iMessage, and there is a program that can analyze what keys are used to encrypt. Granted, this is not easy and reverse engineering is not a preferable way to thoroughly investigate and verify an app's actions, but to call it "completely unverifiable" is just hyperbole.
marssaxman 11y ago
What is "BFU"?

by glogla 11y ago

gambiting 11y ago

In my personal opinion: if you want to communicate securely, with a very low probability of eavesdropping - use voice chat in any of modern games, on any platform. On both PS4 and X1, voice chat communication has to be encrypted(it's a compliance requirement), but at the same time there is no requirement that you have to implement a server relay - so a lot of games don't bother doing it, and it's a straight up P2P mesh implementation. You have encrypted, P2P traffic, not stored anywhere, that you can create an anonymous account to use.

random778 11y ago
http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/133488739430/is-playstation-4-network-traffic-especially http://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/133488739430/is-playstat... It seems that PS4 encryption is broken.
- gambiting 11y ago
  Yep, but pretty much all games implement their own voip, in addition to system chat(Party Chat) - and while system chat can be forced to relay through MS/Sony servers, custom implementations in games do not have this requirement. They can also use different encryption to the system one.
the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
As a game developer I can tell you that safeguards are i place to bypass this encryption.
- gambiting 11y ago
  I am also a game developer, and I have recently been working on implementing a voip system in a game. Sony/X1 requires you to use an "approved" encryption scheme, but they don't actually require you to store the key with them, or implement a server relay(which would allow them to intercept all traffic easily).
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    I did not implement VOIP on PS4 but I know for a fact that on 360 and XB1 the encryption for VOIP data can be entirely disabled. In case of XB1 they make you provide files to strip the voip stream from the rest of your game packets for this very reason.

chaitanya 11y ago

> Signal is bound to Google, and Moxie's views on corporate control and calling getting applications from somewhere else than Google "going back to the old broken desktop security model" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. When you say its bound to Google, do you mean that users rely on play store to get Signal, or something else?

epimenov 11y ago
I think it means that push notifications are delivered via google cloud platform
- feld 11y ago
  And the concern is that Google has a backdoor into your phone Easy solution: don't buy android
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    ...and buy Apple instead? Or just go back to featurephones? I don't see any good answers in the cellphone market.
luxflux 11y ago
It would be nice to find Signal on F-Droid for those of us who'd rather not be a part of the Google ecosystem.
- Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
  There is an F-droid repo somewhere of a fork that uses websockets. Of course not embraced by the Signal team, but from what I gather it works most of the time. Sometimes getting messages can be a bit wonky, though.

eggie 11y ago

> Telegram has broken crypto, doesn't ecrypt by default and the authors being arrogant about their broken crypto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. As a lay-person in this space, could you explain what's wrong with their crypto? Have their recent competitions not addressed Moxie's concerns? Would you be more comfortable if they published their server code (as they keep promising to do...)? Their arrogance and will to power is rather mild in comparison to that of the people running Facebook and its properties. I'm happy not to see ads based on my private chats.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

> Telegram has broken crypto, doesn't ecrypt by default and the authors being arrogant about their broken crypto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I find this "because it's not 100% standard crypto it's broken" mentality here questionable. Surely innovation can happen in the crypto space without having to be signed off by the usual suspects? Last time I checked Telegram's crypto was not broken. Of course it does not end to end encrypt by default. Most people do not want that given the disadvantages this has in the user experience.

epimenov 11y ago
This is absolutely dangerous thinking. There are a lot of people researching crypto and making sure it's secure. If you're using non-standard crypto, you don't have that safety net. They're using primitives that are proven to be insecure against certain types of attacks (non-checked DH, MAC-then-encrypt, etc). And their code seems to be not perfect (https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/582916365750669312 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/58291636575066931...). Signal on the other hand uses a variant of OTR (https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/advanced-ratcheting/). Which was thoroughly reviewed, and mentioned in NSA documents as not-cracked. You can't just invent something and claim "last time I checked it's not broken". It's not broken (yet) if enough competent eyes looked at it, and the more standard building blocks you use, the easier to make those claims. That is absolutely not what Telegram does. I really wish the myth that Telegram is secure would die.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > This is absolutely dangerous thinking. There are a lot of people researching crypto and making sure it's secure. If you're using non-standard crypto, you don't have that safety net. Absolutely dangerous thinking is to declare cryptography off limits. With that in mind eventually you just scare more people to participate in this process and eventually be left with a tiny core community. And this discussion is very moot anyways as telegram uses standard cryptographic primitives. > They're using primitives that are proven to be insecure against certain types of attacks (non-checked DH, MAC-then-encrypt, etc). Except they are not using them in any insecure way and they are doing this for very good reasons. This Twitter thread is also full of misinformation collected together from an age old post that was itself misunderstanding how the protocol actually works. > You can't just invent something and claim "last time I checked it's not broken". Sure, that's exactly how SSL works. We invented crypto systems and we are using them until they are broken, then we phase them out for something else.

biokoda 11y ago

> are closed source, so they are completely unverifiable. They can still be verified by third parties if Whatsapp/iMessage wanted to do it. No company can satisfy security purists, because they can't make a living out of it. We have a secure messaging/voip app. Verified by a third party (they have the entire source code). We use the same protocol signal uses (Axolotl ratchet). You can install applications without app/play store and you can run the server on-premise on your own infrastructure. No google services are needed. But all of that will still not be acceptable by "the community", because we are closed source and charge a license fee.

dTal 11y ago

There isn't one with traction. SMSSecure is a fork of Textsecure (Signal before it changed names) that drops all internet features and focuses on SMS only. So there's no Google dependency at all, and you get all of Moxie's crypto chops with none of his wacky views (it's on GPlay and F-Droid, with no fuss). I use it as my main SMS app, and so do a few of my (non-technical) friends and family. It really does just work. The only downside is that nobody knows it exists. So it's hard to get people to use it, and it doesn't get the eyeballs it deserves.

kobayashi 11y ago

What do you mean Signal is bound to Google? Also, iMessage is not "completely unverifiable". In fact, there has been much work put in to reverse engineering iMessage, and there is a program that can analyze what keys are used to encrypt. Granted, this is not easy and reverse engineering is not a preferable way to thoroughly investigate and verify an app's actions, but to call it "completely unverifiable" is just hyperbole.

marssaxman 11y ago

What is "BFU"?