4 ms·

I cannot fathom why people who want VPN keep using Tinc with its hand-rolled protocol riddled with cryptographic errors.

by dozzie 9y ago

cyounkins 9y ago
Citation?
- dozzie 9y ago
  Have you read the protocol and compared it with techniques used to build any widely used cryptographic transport? I did. Given that this is not point to point protocol, you cannot just assume that the author used stock protocol (TLS or IPsec), because there's no such thing. And unless there was an analysis that confirmed the protocol's strength or the author is a recognized cryptographer, you cannot assume he did a good job.
  - avtar 9y ago
    The parent rightfully asked for a citation for your claim: > hand-rolled protocol riddled with cryptographic errors It's fine if you know of examples but even better if you can provide them so others benefit.
    - dozzie 9y ago
      It was a few years ago, so I don't remember the details, but there were things like lack of integrity protection for control messages sent between nodes or keys with a very long life time shared by all the nodes.
  - cat199 9y ago
    > And unless there was an analysis that confirmed the protocol's strength or the author is a recognized cryptographer, you cannot assume he did a good job. nor can you assume he did a bad job..
    - dozzie 9y ago
      It's a cryptographic product. You have to assume he did a bad job unless proven otherwise.
      - cat199 9y ago
        Assuming a bad job for auditing purposes is not anywhere near the same thing as making a direct assertion that the protocol is 'riddled with holes'
- scottlamb 9y ago
  No citation, but IIRC the tinc 1.0 branch has little/no protection against replay attacks, at least in UDP mode. I recall the 1.1 branch improving the protocol in this regard, though it's been a long time since I looked, and I can't vouch for its overall security. I'm surprised it hasn't been officially released yet; the branch was cut over a decade ago! (Also a little annoyed; I contributed improvements to tincctl back then, and they still haven't been released...)
throwaway8231 9y ago
There's a similar software called peervpn that I use. It encrypts traffic as well, but I don't know about its cryptographic strength or implementation, so I don't rely on it. HTTPS/encrypted data through the tunnels only.
callalex 9y ago
It’s all about your use case and threat model. For me, I am just using it to get around traffic shaping by my shitty ISP. Easy setup and speed are the only parts that matter to me. If the government wanted to sniff my traffic I’m sure they could find a way, but my ISP is too dumb to do it on their own which solves my problem.

I cannot fathom why people who want VPN keep using Tinc with its hand-rolled protocol riddled with cryptographic errors.

by dozzie 9y ago

I cannot fathom why people who want VPN keep using Tinc with its hand-rolled protocol riddled with cryptographic errors.

cyounkins 9y ago

Citation?

dozzie 9y ago
Have you read the protocol and compared it with techniques used to build any widely used cryptographic transport? I did. Given that this is not point to point protocol, you cannot just assume that the author used stock protocol (TLS or IPsec), because there's no such thing. And unless there was an analysis that confirmed the protocol's strength or the author is a recognized cryptographer, you cannot assume he did a good job.
- avtar 9y ago
  The parent rightfully asked for a citation for your claim: > hand-rolled protocol riddled with cryptographic errors It's fine if you know of examples but even better if you can provide them so others benefit.
  - dozzie 9y ago
    It was a few years ago, so I don't remember the details, but there were things like lack of integrity protection for control messages sent between nodes or keys with a very long life time shared by all the nodes.
- cat199 9y ago
  > And unless there was an analysis that confirmed the protocol's strength or the author is a recognized cryptographer, you cannot assume he did a good job. nor can you assume he did a bad job..
  - dozzie 9y ago
    It's a cryptographic product. You have to assume he did a bad job unless proven otherwise.
    - cat199 9y ago
      Assuming a bad job for auditing purposes is not anywhere near the same thing as making a direct assertion that the protocol is 'riddled with holes'
scottlamb 9y ago
No citation, but IIRC the tinc 1.0 branch has little/no protection against replay attacks, at least in UDP mode. I recall the 1.1 branch improving the protocol in this regard, though it's been a long time since I looked, and I can't vouch for its overall security. I'm surprised it hasn't been officially released yet; the branch was cut over a decade ago! (Also a little annoyed; I contributed improvements to tincctl back then, and they still haven't been released...)

throwaway8231 9y ago

There's a similar software called peervpn that I use. It encrypts traffic as well, but I don't know about its cryptographic strength or implementation, so I don't rely on it. HTTPS/encrypted data through the tunnels only.

callalex 9y ago

It’s all about your use case and threat model. For me, I am just using it to get around traffic shaping by my shitty ISP. Easy setup and speed are the only parts that matter to me. If the government wanted to sniff my traffic I’m sure they could find a way, but my ISP is too dumb to do it on their own which solves my problem.