11 ms·

Looking at Algo (https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-that-works/ https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-th...), it seem

by aktau 9y ago

Looking at Algo (https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-that-works/ https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-th...), it seems like it provides an easy way to setup a (secure) VPN on a piece of hardware you own or one of the supported public clouds. In that respect, I'm not sure if it gives a lot of privacy. As you're the only one using that VPN, the traffic may not be too hard to trace back to you.

dublinben 9y ago
It sounds like you're attempting to gain anonymity, not privacy. Any VPN only offers limited anonymity, since that is not their purpose. If you want robust anonymity, you need to use something like Tor.
problems 9y ago
Algo isn't that much better than any other VPN - arguably it's slightly better security wise, though I'd argue Wireguard tops it by far on cipher choices and security margins. Ultimately VPNs just aren't for hiding anything that could cause you significant problems. If you want that, Tor, i2p, or piles of hacked boxes are your only options really if you must interact with the clearnet.
- Loony2 9y ago
  The security of Wireguard is completely unknown. Sure, it might be more secure after a formal release and a security evaluation. They even state themselves that they should not be used if security is required.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I don't know anyone working in the field who believes Wireguard is likely to be less secure than StrongSwan or OpenVPN, and Wireguard is something that gets talked about a lot. It's early days for Wireguard, to be sure, but it's one of the most promising security projects there is right now.
    - Loony2 9y ago
      I work in the field and anybody that says that a piece of software is secure before it has even had a security evaluation by a third party does not know what they are talking about. I think what you have seen is security people saying that the design of Wireguard seems to be equal or better than other, current, options, that doesn't mean that the implementation is just yet.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I've spent my career doing third-party software security evaluations --- among other things, I founded the NCC Cryptography Services practice --- and I will tell you right now that the Wireguard security story is far more compelling than any third-party audit. It's not simply the protocol design, which is superior in pretty much every conceivable way to IKE or TLS, but also the code, which is carefully written to minimize attack surface and increase reviewability. Choosing OpenVPN or StrongSWAN over WireGuard to minimize exposure to vulnerabilities would be a dumb bet. Sometimes dumb bets pay off, but it's still dumb to make them.
        jwfxpr 9y ago
        Could you unpack your statement about the careful code writing, or link to an explanation? We would usually expect a formal third-party audit to substantiate such a claim, but if there is other good evidence for their code's secure implementation I'd love to see it.
        tptacek 9y ago
        First, I'm going to try not to go into this in detail right now, but HN has very weird ideas about the potency of third-party code audits, particularly for things involving cryptography. A short summary: most third-party audits of cryptographic software written in systems languages don't accomplish anything. Most crypto software you depend on has never had a full-coverage audit from third-party auditors qualified to evaluate crypto. You can watch any talk about WireGuard to see what I mean about the way WireGuard's code is written, but the short answer is that the thing was designed from the bottom up to be simple. WireGuard's feature selection was influenced strongly by what would keep the codebase smaller and easier to review. It was also designed to simplify the object lifecycle inside the code itself. All its state is preallocated at initialization. WireGuard's cryptography is essentially an instantiation of Trevor Perrin's Noise framework. It's modern and, again, simple. Every other VPN option is a mess of negotiation and handshaking and complicated state machines. WireGuard is like the Signal/Axolotl of VPNs, except it's much simpler and easier to reason about (cryptographically, in this case) than double ratchet messaging protocols. It is basically the qmail of VPN software. And it's ~4000 lines of code. It is plural orders of magnitude smaller than its competitors. WireGuard isn't a panacea. In particular: clientside support for it isn't there yet! But it's pretty clear to me at least that WireGuard should imminently be replacing OpenVPN and IPSEC.
- jsalinas 9y ago
  The only problem I have with Algo is that it isn't compatible with Little Snitch :(

by aktau 9y ago

dublinben 9y ago

It sounds like you're attempting to gain anonymity, not privacy. Any VPN only offers limited anonymity, since that is not their purpose. If you want robust anonymity, you need to use something like Tor.

problems 9y ago

Algo isn't that much better than any other VPN - arguably it's slightly better security wise, though I'd argue Wireguard tops it by far on cipher choices and security margins. Ultimately VPNs just aren't for hiding anything that could cause you significant problems. If you want that, Tor, i2p, or piles of hacked boxes are your only options really if you must interact with the clearnet.

Loony2 9y ago
The security of Wireguard is completely unknown. Sure, it might be more secure after a formal release and a security evaluation. They even state themselves that they should not be used if security is required.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I don't know anyone working in the field who believes Wireguard is likely to be less secure than StrongSwan or OpenVPN, and Wireguard is something that gets talked about a lot. It's early days for Wireguard, to be sure, but it's one of the most promising security projects there is right now.
  - Loony2 9y ago
    I work in the field and anybody that says that a piece of software is secure before it has even had a security evaluation by a third party does not know what they are talking about. I think what you have seen is security people saying that the design of Wireguard seems to be equal or better than other, current, options, that doesn't mean that the implementation is just yet.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I've spent my career doing third-party software security evaluations --- among other things, I founded the NCC Cryptography Services practice --- and I will tell you right now that the Wireguard security story is far more compelling than any third-party audit. It's not simply the protocol design, which is superior in pretty much every conceivable way to IKE or TLS, but also the code, which is carefully written to minimize attack surface and increase reviewability. Choosing OpenVPN or StrongSWAN over WireGuard to minimize exposure to vulnerabilities would be a dumb bet. Sometimes dumb bets pay off, but it's still dumb to make them.
      - jwfxpr 9y ago
        Could you unpack your statement about the careful code writing, or link to an explanation? We would usually expect a formal third-party audit to substantiate such a claim, but if there is other good evidence for their code's secure implementation I'd love to see it.
        tptacek 9y ago
        First, I'm going to try not to go into this in detail right now, but HN has very weird ideas about the potency of third-party code audits, particularly for things involving cryptography. A short summary: most third-party audits of cryptographic software written in systems languages don't accomplish anything. Most crypto software you depend on has never had a full-coverage audit from third-party auditors qualified to evaluate crypto. You can watch any talk about WireGuard to see what I mean about the way WireGuard's code is written, but the short answer is that the thing was designed from the bottom up to be simple. WireGuard's feature selection was influenced strongly by what would keep the codebase smaller and easier to review. It was also designed to simplify the object lifecycle inside the code itself. All its state is preallocated at initialization. WireGuard's cryptography is essentially an instantiation of Trevor Perrin's Noise framework. It's modern and, again, simple. Every other VPN option is a mess of negotiation and handshaking and complicated state machines. WireGuard is like the Signal/Axolotl of VPNs, except it's much simpler and easier to reason about (cryptographically, in this case) than double ratchet messaging protocols. It is basically the qmail of VPN software. And it's ~4000 lines of code. It is plural orders of magnitude smaller than its competitors. WireGuard isn't a panacea. In particular: clientside support for it isn't there yet! But it's pretty clear to me at least that WireGuard should imminently be replacing OpenVPN and IPSEC.
jsalinas 9y ago
The only problem I have with Algo is that it isn't compatible with Little Snitch :(