30 ms·

Thanks. I was just looking at the screenshots and didn't seen any hashes, but when I tried it out and copied to the clipboard I saw the form "https://send.firef

Thanks. I was just looking at the screenshots and didn't seen any hashes, but when I tried it out and copied to the clipboard I saw the form "https://send.firefox.com/download/xxxxx/#yyyyy" https://send.firefox.com/download/xxxxx/#yyyyy".

snvzz 9y ago
#yyyyy would be the encryption key. The webserver end never sees it. It can, however, easily be read via javascript, so mozilla needs to be trusted in any case.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  at least you can check that its not going back to the server.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    How?
    - sushisource 9y ago
      Inspect network traffic. Or more arduously, analyze the JS.
      - recursive 9y ago
        There are a lot of bytes moving around. I mean, I basically trust mozilla, but if they were a bad actor, it could easily be hidden steganographically.
        Spivak 9y ago
        And if your client is compromised then you're basically hosed in any secure application.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        Network traffic could be encrypted, so you'd have to analyze the JavaScript.
- TuringTest 9y ago
  > It can, however, easily be read via javascript, so mozilla needs to be trusted in any case. Or you (and some friends from organizations like the EFF and FSF) can read the source code to see what it does, and even compile it yourself. If you do that, you only need to trust the compiler.
  - carussell 9y ago
    No, you still need to trust that Mozilla's deployment corresponds to the publicly available release—that they aren't using a version with changes nor have they been breached by an attacker who can change it to sample 1/n transactions.
- claudius 9y ago
  If one were to build a marketing spyware add-on to analyse user traffic from within the browser and send all visited URLs to some remote server, would those sent URLs then possibly contain the anchor?
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    If it's running on the client, then yes it could read the anchor text.
  - codingdave 9y ago
    Yes, but would that matter if these are one-time downloads? You couldn't go get the file even if you did grab the data needed to do so... or am I missing something?
    - claudius 9y ago
      The add-on could tell Mozilla which files to keep because it saved the decryption key for those files. Mozilla could then select those files to decrypt, e.g. to prove to authorities that its file-sharing service was not used for illicit purposes. Alternatively, the add-on could filter the IP addresses used to upload the files for potentially sensitive blocks and then tell Mozilla to decrypt the files uploaded by people from such blocks, e.g. in an attempt to engage in corporate espionage (of course one shouldn’t use third-party services for sensitive files in the first place, but if you have to use a third-party service, certainly an ‘open-source’, ‘private’ and ‘encrypted’ one from such a reputable company as Mozilla, right?)
      - floatingatoll 9y ago
        Several of the alternatives linked in this post’s comments make no effort to encrypt at all; they simply try to con users into sharing files with their intermediate server in plaintext, as if somehow that’s an acceptable thing to do. If you don’t trust Mozilla or you are sharing information that a nation-state attacker would coerce Mozilla into revealing, then you’re already set up to encrypt the file first yourself - at which point you can send it with any service, include Firefox Send.

snvzz 9y ago

#yyyyy would be the encryption key. The webserver end never sees it. It can, however, easily be read via javascript, so mozilla needs to be trusted in any case.

madeofpalk 9y ago
at least you can check that its not going back to the server.
- jhasse 9y ago
  How?
  - sushisource 9y ago
    Inspect network traffic. Or more arduously, analyze the JS.
    - recursive 9y ago
      There are a lot of bytes moving around. I mean, I basically trust mozilla, but if they were a bad actor, it could easily be hidden steganographically.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        And if your client is compromised then you're basically hosed in any secure application.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      Network traffic could be encrypted, so you'd have to analyze the JavaScript.
TuringTest 9y ago
> It can, however, easily be read via javascript, so mozilla needs to be trusted in any case. Or you (and some friends from organizations like the EFF and FSF) can read the source code to see what it does, and even compile it yourself. If you do that, you only need to trust the compiler.
- carussell 9y ago
  No, you still need to trust that Mozilla's deployment corresponds to the publicly available release—that they aren't using a version with changes nor have they been breached by an attacker who can change it to sample 1/n transactions.
claudius 9y ago
If one were to build a marketing spyware add-on to analyse user traffic from within the browser and send all visited URLs to some remote server, would those sent URLs then possibly contain the anchor?
- SquareWheel 9y ago
  If it's running on the client, then yes it could read the anchor text.
- codingdave 9y ago
  Yes, but would that matter if these are one-time downloads? You couldn't go get the file even if you did grab the data needed to do so... or am I missing something?
  - claudius 9y ago
    The add-on could tell Mozilla which files to keep because it saved the decryption key for those files. Mozilla could then select those files to decrypt, e.g. to prove to authorities that its file-sharing service was not used for illicit purposes. Alternatively, the add-on could filter the IP addresses used to upload the files for potentially sensitive blocks and then tell Mozilla to decrypt the files uploaded by people from such blocks, e.g. in an attempt to engage in corporate espionage (of course one shouldn’t use third-party services for sensitive files in the first place, but if you have to use a third-party service, certainly an ‘open-source’, ‘private’ and ‘encrypted’ one from such a reputable company as Mozilla, right?)
    - floatingatoll 9y ago
      Several of the alternatives linked in this post’s comments make no effort to encrypt at all; they simply try to con users into sharing files with their intermediate server in plaintext, as if somehow that’s an acceptable thing to do. If you don’t trust Mozilla or you are sharing information that a nation-state attacker would coerce Mozilla into revealing, then you’re already set up to encrypt the file first yourself - at which point you can send it with any service, include Firefox Send.