3 ms·

js crypto's trust problem isn't solved yet. One has to trust hawkpost.co to not serve compromised client side js.

by leni536 10y ago

willvarfar 10y ago
Yes, you really need to host your own server and audit the code carefully. Which moves the threat to state actors willing to substitute certs, and that's the point at which the web fails you totally anyway.
edejong 10y ago
Yes, there is no JS source signing in the browser yet. Then again, do you check the (compiled) code that is delivered to you via source repositories with which you sign/encrypt your GPG messages? How many people read the OpenSSL source code? How trustworthy are the signatures on Debian packages?
- haywirez 10y ago
  What about SRI? "Subresource Integrity (SRI) is a security feature that enables browsers to verify that files they fetch (for example, from a CDN) are delivered without unexpected manipulation. It works by allowing you to provide a cryptographic hash that a fetched file must match." [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    SRI is a great way to make an html page that loads all the js from a server, tell the user to store that locally, and be sure that the loaded js files will never change (otherwise they won't get loaded).
    - eli 10y ago
      Why not just store all the js locally too?
      - Tepix 10y ago
        It's slower but also provides better privacy.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Purely for UX, it's easier to say "save the page you're currently viewing" than "save this page and also these files". It's not a huge difference, though, as you noted.
- witty_username 10y ago
  At least with the Debian system it might be possible to get some information about the attackers.
twiss 10y ago
I've written a Firefox plugin [0] that checks hardcoded hashes (which can of course only work if the code doesn't change often) and a not-yet-published Chrome plugin that checks the source against the version on GitHub (which requires you to trust that either the webserver or GitHub will not be compromised). @chomponthis: hit me up if you want to work on making either or both plugins work for HawkPost, email in profile. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/hcs-checker/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/hcs-checker/
- dethos 10y ago
  thanks, I didn't had the time to carefully see the provided link, but the concepts looks interesting. The code is still changing with some frequency, when it starts to slowdown, we will come back to this. note: I also have been contributing to hawkpost.
Tepix 10y ago
The code is supposed to be self hosted, so if you give someone else this link it will be at https://yourdomain.com/.. https://yourdomain.com/...
- SamBam 10y ago
  But the person has to trust that you understand security well enough to prevent your server being compromised, which is not trivial. That is, it's much easier for an average developer to install this on their server than it is for them to understand the security well enough to guarantee that no one else is snooping on said server. Right?
  - jsingleton 10y ago
    The alternative, using local encryption software has its own risks. As a user, I'd much rather run some code in a browser sandbox than on my desktop, where it has potentially far more access (even if not run as root).

js crypto's trust problem isn't solved yet. One has to trust hawkpost.co to not serve compromised client side js.

by leni536 10y ago

js crypto's trust problem isn't solved yet. One has to trust hawkpost.co to not serve compromised client side js.

Yes, you really need to host your own server and audit the code carefully. Which moves the threat to state actors willing to substitute certs, and that's the point at which the web fails you totally anyway.

edejong 10y ago

Yes, there is no JS source signing in the browser yet. Then again, do you check the (compiled) code that is delivered to you via source repositories with which you sign/encrypt your GPG messages? How many people read the OpenSSL source code? How trustworthy are the signatures on Debian packages?

haywirez 10y ago
What about SRI? "Subresource Integrity (SRI) is a security feature that enables browsers to verify that files they fetch (for example, from a CDN) are delivered without unexpected manipulation. It works by allowing you to provide a cryptographic hash that a fetched file must match." [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...
- StavrosK 10y ago
  SRI is a great way to make an html page that loads all the js from a server, tell the user to store that locally, and be sure that the loaded js files will never change (otherwise they won't get loaded).
  - eli 10y ago
    Why not just store all the js locally too?
    - Tepix 10y ago
      It's slower but also provides better privacy.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Purely for UX, it's easier to say "save the page you're currently viewing" than "save this page and also these files". It's not a huge difference, though, as you noted.
witty_username 10y ago
At least with the Debian system it might be possible to get some information about the attackers.

twiss 10y ago

I've written a Firefox plugin [0] that checks hardcoded hashes (which can of course only work if the code doesn't change often) and a not-yet-published Chrome plugin that checks the source against the version on GitHub (which requires you to trust that either the webserver or GitHub will not be compromised). @chomponthis: hit me up if you want to work on making either or both plugins work for HawkPost, email in profile. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/hcs-checker/ https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/hcs-checker/

dethos 10y ago
thanks, I didn't had the time to carefully see the provided link, but the concepts looks interesting. The code is still changing with some frequency, when it starts to slowdown, we will come back to this. note: I also have been contributing to hawkpost.

Tepix 10y ago

The code is supposed to be self hosted, so if you give someone else this link it will be at https://yourdomain.com/.. https://yourdomain.com/...

SamBam 10y ago
But the person has to trust that you understand security well enough to prevent your server being compromised, which is not trivial. That is, it's much easier for an average developer to install this on their server than it is for them to understand the security well enough to guarantee that no one else is snooping on said server. Right?
- jsingleton 10y ago
  The alternative, using local encryption software has its own risks. As a user, I'd much rather run some code in a browser sandbox than on my desktop, where it has potentially far more access (even if not run as root).