4 ms·

It woulds still be great to get some sort of protocol that will work over email. This is still the de-facto way of communication. If we can secure it, it would

by rocqua 9y ago

It woulds still be great to get some sort of protocol that will work over email. This is still the de-facto way of communication. If we can secure it, it would be a massive win. Much like the wide-spread use of HTTPS over HTTP was a massive win.

tptacek 9y ago
Why would that be a good thing? You'd still be left with a system that leaks immense amounts of metadata, which is often all government adversaries really care about, where the majority of the installed base isn't encrypted and you have to interoperate, and the vast majority of users gets access to messages through a web browser and so is hamstrung on secure delivery of encryption in the first place. Just stop using email to deliver secrets.
- dasil003 9y ago
  I think the GP's desire is not email per se, but rather an open and federated protocol like email so we aren't dependent on a single commercial vendor. I'm not really sure how practical that is since it's really hard to get broad adoption of a new protocol on today's internet.
- e12e 9y ago
  Sure, email leaks meta-data. But at its core, the promise of pgp/gpg is the promise of encrypted and authenticated file transfer. The file might come from ftp, samba/cifs, Dropbox/Google drive/etc, from tape or HD backup - or come attached to an email. It may come from yourself, or from a friend. But the promise is that between the encryption and signing - and the verification and decryption - the file remain the same. The zip file is as (Un)safe to extract, the font as (Un)safe to render - the installer or the executable as (Un)safe. If you have (authenticated) file encryption, you have encrypted email. If you want to use authenticated file encryption as a secure messaging platform, you should probably invest in a more sane format for your plaintext file than email. And a better wrapping transport than email. The fundamental problems with email+pgp as a secure messaging platform isn't pgp alone - but the intersection of email-the-format, email-the-protocol mixed with the mail user agents and their 80s trusting file handling (ok, that's unfair to the 80s, we're still too trusting when it comes to files in general and transclusion in particular). In short, I don't think we should give up all of pgp as such (open, secure, authenticated file encryption and Web of trust). But it's probably true that newer protocols are better for "real-time" messaging, and perhaps usenet is better for hold-and-forward. [ed: I'd love to hear some current informed discussion about: https://saltpack.org/ https://saltpack.org/ mentioned in this discussion here. From the previous hn discussion it seems reasonable; a sane format (message pack), authenticated encryption primitives - but I worry a bit about public key handling - is there Web of trust/certificate support - and if so, is it sane? I'm not saying pgp/gpg wot is sane. But neither is ssh (certs) in practice. I'd much prefer wot - were for some applications I could choose arbitrary key/certs as authorative CAs and give out short-lived "certs" (signed public keys with valid from-to).]
- xoa 9y ago
  >Just stop using email to deliver secrets. At the least I'm not sure this is legally feasible under ERISA electronic delivery requirements, to name a single one amongst a host of other often incredibly complex regulations. It might be ok under the UETA, but either way that wouldn't be my call. I am 100% sure that it wouldn't be ok with coworkers, customers, and in turn bosses, so demanding to cease all usage of email would get me fired. I mean, even entirely plain text email isn't sufficient to get anyone to stop using it to deliver secrets. It's been a real improvement just to have the MUA<>Server connection be encrypted, and even that is probably still not universal!
- smsm42 9y ago
  > a system that leaks immense amounts of metadata Doesn't Signal require you to publish your actual phone number, which reveals your RL identity in the network pretty much completely controlled by government?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No.
    - comex 9y ago
      Explain? I Googled it and it seems that Signal still doesn’t support having an account that isn’t tied to a phone number. Some of the results suggest working around the limitation by obtaining a phone number just for Signal from third parties, but that’s not a particularly reasonable alternative.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-phone-number/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-p...
        smsm42 9y ago
        This article explains how to create a second phone number, for usage for Signal. Which confirms my assertion that you need phone number, and makes your statement of "no" completely false. Among options offered: The desk phone at your office. A free Google Voice phone number, if you live in the United States (this is what I do). Any phone number from any online calling service, like Skype. A cheap pre-paid SIM card for a few dollars a month (and temporarily put it on your phone to register your second Signal number). Twilio, a cloud service that allows developers to write software that makes and receives phone calls and SMS messages. Obviously, each of those still requires registration within government-controlled phone network, and additionally also may require you to entrust your security to a third party - such as your employer, Google, Microsoft or Twilio. So in fact, you refutation of my assertion "you need to publish a phone number" is "you can have two phone numbers". This is not serious.

by rocqua 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

Why would that be a good thing? You'd still be left with a system that leaks immense amounts of metadata, which is often all government adversaries really care about, where the majority of the installed base isn't encrypted and you have to interoperate, and the vast majority of users gets access to messages through a web browser and so is hamstrung on secure delivery of encryption in the first place. Just stop using email to deliver secrets.

dasil003 9y ago
I think the GP's desire is not email per se, but rather an open and federated protocol like email so we aren't dependent on a single commercial vendor. I'm not really sure how practical that is since it's really hard to get broad adoption of a new protocol on today's internet.
e12e 9y ago
Sure, email leaks meta-data. But at its core, the promise of pgp/gpg is the promise of encrypted and authenticated file transfer. The file might come from ftp, samba/cifs, Dropbox/Google drive/etc, from tape or HD backup - or come attached to an email. It may come from yourself, or from a friend. But the promise is that between the encryption and signing - and the verification and decryption - the file remain the same. The zip file is as (Un)safe to extract, the font as (Un)safe to render - the installer or the executable as (Un)safe. If you have (authenticated) file encryption, you have encrypted email. If you want to use authenticated file encryption as a secure messaging platform, you should probably invest in a more sane format for your plaintext file than email. And a better wrapping transport than email. The fundamental problems with email+pgp as a secure messaging platform isn't pgp alone - but the intersection of email-the-format, email-the-protocol mixed with the mail user agents and their 80s trusting file handling (ok, that's unfair to the 80s, we're still too trusting when it comes to files in general and transclusion in particular). In short, I don't think we should give up all of pgp as such (open, secure, authenticated file encryption and Web of trust). But it's probably true that newer protocols are better for "real-time" messaging, and perhaps usenet is better for hold-and-forward. [ed: I'd love to hear some current informed discussion about: https://saltpack.org/ https://saltpack.org/ mentioned in this discussion here. From the previous hn discussion it seems reasonable; a sane format (message pack), authenticated encryption primitives - but I worry a bit about public key handling - is there Web of trust/certificate support - and if so, is it sane? I'm not saying pgp/gpg wot is sane. But neither is ssh (certs) in practice. I'd much prefer wot - were for some applications I could choose arbitrary key/certs as authorative CAs and give out short-lived "certs" (signed public keys with valid from-to).]
xoa 9y ago
>Just stop using email to deliver secrets. At the least I'm not sure this is legally feasible under ERISA electronic delivery requirements, to name a single one amongst a host of other often incredibly complex regulations. It might be ok under the UETA, but either way that wouldn't be my call. I am 100% sure that it wouldn't be ok with coworkers, customers, and in turn bosses, so demanding to cease all usage of email would get me fired. I mean, even entirely plain text email isn't sufficient to get anyone to stop using it to deliver secrets. It's been a real improvement just to have the MUA<>Server connection be encrypted, and even that is probably still not universal!
smsm42 9y ago
> a system that leaks immense amounts of metadata Doesn't Signal require you to publish your actual phone number, which reveals your RL identity in the network pretty much completely controlled by government?
- tptacek 9y ago
  No.
  - comex 9y ago
    Explain? I Googled it and it seems that Signal still doesn’t support having an account that isn’t tied to a phone number. Some of the results suggest working around the limitation by obtaining a phone number just for Signal from third parties, but that’s not a particularly reasonable alternative.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-phone-number/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-p...
      - smsm42 9y ago
        This article explains how to create a second phone number, for usage for Signal. Which confirms my assertion that you need phone number, and makes your statement of "no" completely false. Among options offered: The desk phone at your office. A free Google Voice phone number, if you live in the United States (this is what I do). Any phone number from any online calling service, like Skype. A cheap pre-paid SIM card for a few dollars a month (and temporarily put it on your phone to register your second Signal number). Twilio, a cloud service that allows developers to write software that makes and receives phone calls and SMS messages. Obviously, each of those still requires registration within government-controlled phone network, and additionally also may require you to entrust your security to a third party - such as your employer, Google, Microsoft or Twilio. So in fact, you refutation of my assertion "you need to publish a phone number" is "you can have two phone numbers". This is not serious.