6 ms·
It's a weak strawman, though. He isn't literally saying that, but is trying to discount those who complain about closed source by comparing them to people who a
by osweiller 11y ago
It's a weak strawman, though. He isn't literally saying that, but is trying to discount those who complain about closed source by comparing them to people who are apparently anti-iPhone. Then again, maybe that's exactly what you mean and you'd be right -- normally that sort of tired strawman would be dead.
It really is incredible to see tptacek discounting the closed source, completely unaudited nature of this product. A company is saying "we have total end-to-end encryption...trust us", and to believe that you trust the binary that is on your device, that it is managing keys properly (there is usually a fine line between usability and security, and usability usually wins), and you trust that they don't misuse your messages when they pass through their server. They control every aspect of the conversation, and are fully capable of completely undermining your security at any moment (if not already). In practice it's not terribly unlike the widely discredited JavaScript encryption approaches.
- tptacek 11y agoWhat's incredible to me is that it's 2016 and people on one of the largest programming communities on the Internet are still acting like conventionally compiled iOS applications are impenetrable, but C source code for new cryptosystems is somehow instantly validated by the crowd. It's like IDA Pro and OpenSSL never happened.
- sp332 11y agoIf you understand and verify the binary, you don't have to worry about what might happen to your messages on the company's servers.
- osweiller 11y agoHas binary code analysis dramatically progressed or something? This argument has appeared throughout this discussion, yet I know of approximately zero cases (validation/comfort through disassembly) of this happen. Binary code is of course analyzed for faults to exploit, but that's a very different pursuit. EDIT: To answer my own question, no of course it hasn't progressed. This notion that security products are vetted by analyzing the binary code is absurd. No one can point to a single example of it happening, or ever having happened, yet here it's use to excuse a product.
- tptacek 11y agoYou posted your "edit" about 20 minutes after 'sp332 correctly answered your question, and your edit is both flagrantly incorrect and rude.
- osweiller 11y agoWhy is edit scare-quoted? It is, in actuality, an edit, and I quite clearly denote it. Is this yet another example of tptacek, warrior of HN, bullying and pretending that it's good manners (when actually you're just defending your own kneejerk strawman nonsense, trolling of the worst kind). You are quite the remarkable troll here, and somehow ply it unhindered. your edit is both flagrantly incorrect and rude. sp332 tells me to look myself. I followed their advice, and indeed, nothing has progressed. My edit is 100% correct.
- tptacek 11y agoThat wasn't a scare quote, and I don't think name-calling enhanced your argument much.
- sp332 11y agoIt has been dramatically progressing, but you'd have to look around yourself to know if it's beyond what you're thinking of.
- wglb 11y agoThis argument has appeared throughout this discussion, yet I know of approximately zero cases (validation/comfort through disassembly) of this happen. I am curious where you looked for these cases that you saw none. I assure you that this happens quite regularly. And what is wrong with IDA Pro? Why would it need to advance? This notion that security products are vetted by analyzing the binary code is absurd yet it happens on a regular basis.