6 ms·

I believe Android is taking this approach because of hawkish network appliances vendors selling all too powerful gear to enterprises and these enterprises don't

I believe Android is taking this approach because of hawkish network appliances vendors selling all too powerful gear to enterprises and these enterprises don't care about what to decrypt and what not and causing too many weaknesses on the way. I belive MITM decryption for enterprises is a flawed way of identifying intrusions and doesn't stop or hinder any intrusions. It only provides a false sense of security. Intruders will always be able to fool appliances by using encapsulation of multiple encryption protocols or using non-standard protocols.

ffernand 10y ago
I can't really say if Google is taking this approach to secure a device from heavy handed enterprise admins; but if true, it's gone too far by allowing only the app from having private conversations with the api and not allowing the user to see what's being sent over the wire. This isn't exactly new, we do after all, have certificate pinning. But now, this certificate pinning is done at the OS level by DEFAULT, un-trusting all certs except the ones that Google deems fit. We know that there have been un-trustworthy Certificate Authorities that all our machines have trusted until its been deemed unworthy by our vendors... and eventually expunged! But this change explicitly un-trusts us, the users of our own phones -- in the name of security. User deftnerd (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12061342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12061342) had an excellent suggestion that the trusting of user added certs can be relegated to the TPM module (via password, passcode, fingerprint, etc..) -- not by the heavy handed approach of simply blocking us out of our own phones conversation.
- xg15 10y ago
  This may be a conspiracy theory, but how probable is that this move is instead actually motivated by app developers that want to make reverse-engeneering harder? There have been cases in the past were hidden APIs were discovered that e.g. Twitter or WhatsApp were reserving for their own apps. (Not to mention privacy leaks). This will certainly become harder with the new change.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    Honestly, it shouldn't change that too much, since third parties like Cyanogenmod should be able to reverse the change. Of course, it's still a horrible move.
  - iancarroll 10y ago
    Developers who want to do this can already pin certificates relatively easily.
tssva 10y ago
In my experience enterprise MITM decrypt is not usually deployed to identify or stop intrusions. It is deployed to enforce compliance with corporate usage rules and as part of a data loss prevention solution. Quite often these are both necessary to meet regulatory requirements.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  MITMing the world won't do anything against data loss. It might "protect" you against data exposure (though I wouldn't count on it), but that shouldn't be affected by any regulators unless your employees have access to WAY too much user data.
  - tssva 10y ago
    Data loss prevention refers to preventing unauthorized, purposeful or unintentional, access or transmission of sensitive or critical information. A comprehensive DLP solution covers data at rest, data in use and data in motion. Network DLP solutions help address the data in motion. They use MITMing in order to inspect data leaving the enterprise. They are often deployed in order to meet regulatory data protection requirements.
    - Nullabillity 10y ago
      > unauthorized, purposeful or unintentional, access or transmission of sensitive or critical information So there's no loss of data involved. You still have all the data you had before.
      - victorhooi 10y ago
        I can't tell if you're being deliberate obtuse or just trolling... Data loss is an accepted term to describe what tssva is talking about - and yes, it is a real thing in the real world - e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software For example, I used to work in investment banking. It was well known, and expected, that us (and probably most other institutions) had network level monitoring, to prevent say, the leaking of a deal on some chat or web forum somewhere. Believe me, when there's lots of money involved, there are plenty of incentives to leak things. You'd look pretty silly if you had to explain to the regulatory authorities that you took zero steps to secure your network perimeter, or prevent the exfiltration of privileged or confidential data. And there are other legitimate use cases - educational institutions and schools come to mind.

ffernand 10y ago

I can't really say if Google is taking this approach to secure a device from heavy handed enterprise admins; but if true, it's gone too far by allowing only the app from having private conversations with the api and not allowing the user to see what's being sent over the wire. This isn't exactly new, we do after all, have certificate pinning. But now, this certificate pinning is done at the OS level by DEFAULT, un-trusting all certs except the ones that Google deems fit. We know that there have been un-trustworthy Certificate Authorities that all our machines have trusted until its been deemed unworthy by our vendors... and eventually expunged! But this change explicitly un-trusts us, the users of our own phones -- in the name of security. User deftnerd (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12061342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12061342) had an excellent suggestion that the trusting of user added certs can be relegated to the TPM module (via password, passcode, fingerprint, etc..) -- not by the heavy handed approach of simply blocking us out of our own phones conversation.

xg15 10y ago
This may be a conspiracy theory, but how probable is that this move is instead actually motivated by app developers that want to make reverse-engeneering harder? There have been cases in the past were hidden APIs were discovered that e.g. Twitter or WhatsApp were reserving for their own apps. (Not to mention privacy leaks). This will certainly become harder with the new change.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  Honestly, it shouldn't change that too much, since third parties like Cyanogenmod should be able to reverse the change. Of course, it's still a horrible move.
- iancarroll 10y ago
  Developers who want to do this can already pin certificates relatively easily.

tssva 10y ago

In my experience enterprise MITM decrypt is not usually deployed to identify or stop intrusions. It is deployed to enforce compliance with corporate usage rules and as part of a data loss prevention solution. Quite often these are both necessary to meet regulatory requirements.

Nullabillity 10y ago
MITMing the world won't do anything against data loss. It might "protect" you against data exposure (though I wouldn't count on it), but that shouldn't be affected by any regulators unless your employees have access to WAY too much user data.
- tssva 10y ago
  Data loss prevention refers to preventing unauthorized, purposeful or unintentional, access or transmission of sensitive or critical information. A comprehensive DLP solution covers data at rest, data in use and data in motion. Network DLP solutions help address the data in motion. They use MITMing in order to inspect data leaving the enterprise. They are often deployed in order to meet regulatory data protection requirements.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > unauthorized, purposeful or unintentional, access or transmission of sensitive or critical information So there's no loss of data involved. You still have all the data you had before.
    - victorhooi 10y ago
      I can't tell if you're being deliberate obtuse or just trolling... Data loss is an accepted term to describe what tssva is talking about - and yes, it is a real thing in the real world - e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software For example, I used to work in investment banking. It was well known, and expected, that us (and probably most other institutions) had network level monitoring, to prevent say, the leaking of a deal on some chat or web forum somewhere. Believe me, when there's lots of money involved, there are plenty of incentives to leak things. You'd look pretty silly if you had to explain to the regulatory authorities that you took zero steps to secure your network perimeter, or prevent the exfiltration of privileged or confidential data. And there are other legitimate use cases - educational institutions and schools come to mind.