3 ms·

>Why is this any different Nobody says it's different >Why isn't this only an open-source, native app (where I can load a specific, known version instead of w

>Why is this any different Nobody says it's different >Why isn't this only an open-source, native app (where I can load a specific, known version instead of whatever is on the server). OK, let's suppose you're using a native app. One day vendor issues an update with some critical vulnerability patched. Unfortunately, another vulnerability (or even backdoor) sneaks into this update for whatever reasons. How is this any different?

icebraining 10y ago
An update to the native app must be the same for everyone, and being open source, the chances that someone will find out about it are much greater. In a web app, they can send a backdoored copy of the code just to you and just a single time, which is much harder to detect.
jimktrains2 10y ago
> Nobody says it's different They why do all the extra work for no gain in security? I think the sibling comment address your next comment well.
- bartbutler 10y ago
  There's a difference between an active attacker and a passive MITM attacker. Doing this for the web app in addition to the native apps helps prevent a passive MITM attack from stealing login credentials.
  - jimktrains2 10y ago
    A mitm is an active attacker. If TLS fails, then the mitm could modify the code sent to the end user.
    - bartbutler 10y ago
      That's a limited definition of MITM. That would be an active attack, and yes, this does nothing for that for the web app--the native apps are a different story. However, there are plenty of corporate PCs and other machines with root certs installed in a way that a third party could, and often does, passively record traffic without modification for analysis later. SRP prevents those dumps from containing information that can be used to compromise an account.
      - jimktrains2 10y ago
        That is exactly what I'm describing though. The corporation could edit the page to do what they want. To claim otherwise is foolish and really makes me question proton's understanding of security.

icebraining 10y ago

An update to the native app must be the same for everyone, and being open source, the chances that someone will find out about it are much greater. In a web app, they can send a backdoored copy of the code just to you and just a single time, which is much harder to detect.

jimktrains2 10y ago

> Nobody says it's different They why do all the extra work for no gain in security? I think the sibling comment address your next comment well.

bartbutler 10y ago
There's a difference between an active attacker and a passive MITM attacker. Doing this for the web app in addition to the native apps helps prevent a passive MITM attack from stealing login credentials.
- jimktrains2 10y ago
  A mitm is an active attacker. If TLS fails, then the mitm could modify the code sent to the end user.
  - bartbutler 10y ago
    That's a limited definition of MITM. That would be an active attack, and yes, this does nothing for that for the web app--the native apps are a different story. However, there are plenty of corporate PCs and other machines with root certs installed in a way that a third party could, and often does, passively record traffic without modification for analysis later. SRP prevents those dumps from containing information that can be used to compromise an account.
    - jimktrains2 10y ago
      That is exactly what I'm describing though. The corporation could edit the page to do what they want. To claim otherwise is foolish and really makes me question proton's understanding of security.