4 ms·

They're not open source, and I don't see any checksums on their site - so it's possible that their site could be hacked and have a trojan version uploaded. Hard

They're not open source, and I don't see any checksums on their site - so it's possible that their site could be hacked and have a trojan version uploaded. Harder to do for the iPhone/iPad version, but it might still be possible for a clever hacker^Wcracker to put something into the source code if they can get access to it.

ubernostrum 16y ago
Yes, and a clever hacker might sabotage my C compiler to always build a back door into software it compiles. Even if the compiler's open source that can be hard or impossible to detect. But in my experience, too many people confuse "this is a possible threat" with "this is a threat it's reasonable for me worry/take action about", and that's what I was getting at.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  C compilers are distributed with checksums and public key signatures, plus it's possible to decompile generated binaries and examine them - so it's at least an order of magnitude harder to compromise them. 1password is easier and a much juicier target, so compromised binaries are definitely a possible threat. How would you know it was compromised, unless you had a packet sniffer going on your network?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    On their network!
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      If you're using the iPhone/iPad version. The Mac/Windows ones seem to be downloads: http://agilewebsolutions.com/downloads http://agilewebsolutions.com/downloads
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    Again: you're saying "possible threat". I agree it's possible. What you have not demonstrated is that it's likely or reasonable enough to serve as a basis for changing my own actions. It's possible that a password manager could be completely open source, distributed with checksums and public key signatures, that my C compiler could be completely open source and distributed with checksums and public key signatures, and I could still end up with a backdoor in the final compiled result, detectable only by deciding to carefully examine the binary I just built. This is a "possible threat". Should I use that possibility as a justification for never using a password manager? Or for never using a C compiler?
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Simply put, you need to have some assurance that the binary that you're downloading is the one that the developers compiled, and the easiest way to do that is to have crypto checksums. If you don't, all bets are off. And it's not just a "possible threat" but a likely one, and it's happened multiple times in the past. Sites get hacked all the time, and trojans are standard practice these days (unlike compromised-binary-generating C compilers): https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/savannah-gnu-site-compromised-113010 https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/savannah-gnu-site-comprom... http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/2248811/GNU-Project-Server-Hacked-by-Intruder.htm http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/2248811/GN... https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/apache-site-hacked-through-ssh-key-compromise-082809 https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/apache-site-hacked-throug...
- ig1 16y ago
  Yes. There have been attempts in the past to insert critical vulnerabilities into open source libraries that would make programs compiled against them vulnerable. What your suggesting is far less complex than the Stuxnet virus. You need to get binaries from reliable source and verify checksums whenever possible. You can't protect yourself a 100%, but that doesn't mean you should leave or your doors unlocked.

ubernostrum 16y ago

Yes, and a clever hacker might sabotage my C compiler to always build a back door into software it compiles. Even if the compiler's open source that can be hard or impossible to detect. But in my experience, too many people confuse "this is a possible threat" with "this is a threat it's reasonable for me worry/take action about", and that's what I was getting at.

anthonyb 16y ago
C compilers are distributed with checksums and public key signatures, plus it's possible to decompile generated binaries and examine them - so it's at least an order of magnitude harder to compromise them. 1password is easier and a much juicier target, so compromised binaries are definitely a possible threat. How would you know it was compromised, unless you had a packet sniffer going on your network?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  On their network!
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    If you're using the iPhone/iPad version. The Mac/Windows ones seem to be downloads: http://agilewebsolutions.com/downloads http://agilewebsolutions.com/downloads
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  Again: you're saying "possible threat". I agree it's possible. What you have not demonstrated is that it's likely or reasonable enough to serve as a basis for changing my own actions. It's possible that a password manager could be completely open source, distributed with checksums and public key signatures, that my C compiler could be completely open source and distributed with checksums and public key signatures, and I could still end up with a backdoor in the final compiled result, detectable only by deciding to carefully examine the binary I just built. This is a "possible threat". Should I use that possibility as a justification for never using a password manager? Or for never using a C compiler?
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Simply put, you need to have some assurance that the binary that you're downloading is the one that the developers compiled, and the easiest way to do that is to have crypto checksums. If you don't, all bets are off. And it's not just a "possible threat" but a likely one, and it's happened multiple times in the past. Sites get hacked all the time, and trojans are standard practice these days (unlike compromised-binary-generating C compilers): https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/savannah-gnu-site-compromised-113010 https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/savannah-gnu-site-comprom... http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/2248811/GNU-Project-Server-Hacked-by-Intruder.htm http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/2248811/GN... https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/apache-site-hacked-through-ssh-key-compromise-082809 https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/apache-site-hacked-throug...
ig1 16y ago
Yes. There have been attempts in the past to insert critical vulnerabilities into open source libraries that would make programs compiled against them vulnerable. What your suggesting is far less complex than the Stuxnet virus. You need to get binaries from reliable source and verify checksums whenever possible. You can't protect yourself a 100%, but that doesn't mean you should leave or your doors unlocked.