5 ms·

> > Put a Signal number on your security page to receive bug bounty reports, not a PGP key. Does anyone actually do this? Even Signal developers themselves don

> > Put a Signal number on your security page to receive bug bounty reports, not a PGP key. Does anyone actually do this? Even Signal developers themselves don't! (see https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320791-How-can-I-report-a-security-vulnerability- https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320791-Ho...). Instead there is a plain old email address where you are supposed to send your Signal number so that you can chat.

aljungberg 7y ago
If the people from Signal start a conversation with you on the number you emailed, how do you know it’s actually them? Couldn’t it be a third party who intercepted your email? You need to check their “safety number”, and now we’re back to the same idea as with PGP with web of trust and key sharing parties. At some point you still need some kind of pub-key identity check if you don’t want to accidentally report your vulnerability to PRC instead.
- dunkelheit 7y ago
  Right, that's insecure. Maybe they should, you know, put a PGP key on their website? :)
tptacek 7y ago
We manage bug bounties for a bunch of different startups, and I can count on zero fingers the number of times I've had to use PGP in the past year for that. In practice, people just send bugs with plain 'ol email.
- dunkelheit 7y ago
  So even Latacora-advised startups use plain old email for bug bounties. Why then does the blog post recommend using Signal for that?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Because Signal would be better than the PGP theater. In practice, though, it doesn't matter; people are just going to use plain old email no matter what. They're not going to encrypt their findings to you.
    - lvh 7y ago
      Anecdote about said startups: in 2y of the one big bounty that did have a PGP key, we got one PGPd report, and it was “session takeover”: if I copy the cookie out of Burp and into a new Incognito session, I will be logged in. Bounty plz? We also got super clever reports on that same bounty program. They just sent email.
      - dunkelheit 7y ago
        Maybe all PGP users are morons, that's beside the point. My point is that if someone recommends something but doesn't follow their own recommendation, it is most likely that the recommendation is not well thought-out and can be ignored. In this case the recommendation to use Signal looks more like a refutation of the point brought up by PGP advocates and not something that anyone would actually do.
        lvh 7y ago
        That’s a fair criticism and I will happily admit that’s what it should say: that all PGP users are morons. (Just kidding. You’re right re: bug bounty advice.)
    - dewyatt 7y ago
      > PGP theater Hmm I don't see it as theater if you are unable to intercept and decrypt my message. Or forge my signature, etc.
- nmadden 7y ago
  I used to get about 1 or 2 PGP-encrypted emails with security bug reports per year when I managed this for my employer. There's a dedicated team that receives security reports now, with email feeding into an automated ticketing system with automatic acknowledgements, reminders, spam filters, PagerDuty alerts, etc. There's a huge amount of tooling and workflow built around email, with a lot of integrations into all kinds of enterprise software. Often the only sane way to trigger all this stuff is to send an email. So I think the result of removing PGP will be even more plain 'ol email than anything else.
  - lvh 7y ago
    It sounds like you’re saying “and that’s why GPG is good”, but I read that as an argument why there’s a very high probability that one of those things is going to spill the beans, plaintext, in an email anyway.
    - nmadden 7y ago
      No, I'm not defending PGP. Even without the automation, every PGP-encrypted email almost certainly results in a bunch of internal plaintext emails between employees that could easily accidentally cc the wrong person, etc. I'm just pointing out that the chances of replacing PGP with something genuinely secure for these kinds of use-cases are close to zero.

aljungberg 7y ago

If the people from Signal start a conversation with you on the number you emailed, how do you know it’s actually them? Couldn’t it be a third party who intercepted your email? You need to check their “safety number”, and now we’re back to the same idea as with PGP with web of trust and key sharing parties. At some point you still need some kind of pub-key identity check if you don’t want to accidentally report your vulnerability to PRC instead.

dunkelheit 7y ago
Right, that's insecure. Maybe they should, you know, put a PGP key on their website? :)

tptacek 7y ago

We manage bug bounties for a bunch of different startups, and I can count on zero fingers the number of times I've had to use PGP in the past year for that. In practice, people just send bugs with plain 'ol email.

dunkelheit 7y ago
So even Latacora-advised startups use plain old email for bug bounties. Why then does the blog post recommend using Signal for that?
- tptacek 7y ago
  Because Signal would be better than the PGP theater. In practice, though, it doesn't matter; people are just going to use plain old email no matter what. They're not going to encrypt their findings to you.
  - lvh 7y ago
    Anecdote about said startups: in 2y of the one big bounty that did have a PGP key, we got one PGPd report, and it was “session takeover”: if I copy the cookie out of Burp and into a new Incognito session, I will be logged in. Bounty plz? We also got super clever reports on that same bounty program. They just sent email.
    - dunkelheit 7y ago
      Maybe all PGP users are morons, that's beside the point. My point is that if someone recommends something but doesn't follow their own recommendation, it is most likely that the recommendation is not well thought-out and can be ignored. In this case the recommendation to use Signal looks more like a refutation of the point brought up by PGP advocates and not something that anyone would actually do.
      - lvh 7y ago
        That’s a fair criticism and I will happily admit that’s what it should say: that all PGP users are morons. (Just kidding. You’re right re: bug bounty advice.)
  - dewyatt 7y ago
    > PGP theater Hmm I don't see it as theater if you are unable to intercept and decrypt my message. Or forge my signature, etc.
nmadden 7y ago
I used to get about 1 or 2 PGP-encrypted emails with security bug reports per year when I managed this for my employer. There's a dedicated team that receives security reports now, with email feeding into an automated ticketing system with automatic acknowledgements, reminders, spam filters, PagerDuty alerts, etc. There's a huge amount of tooling and workflow built around email, with a lot of integrations into all kinds of enterprise software. Often the only sane way to trigger all this stuff is to send an email. So I think the result of removing PGP will be even more plain 'ol email than anything else.
- lvh 7y ago
  It sounds like you’re saying “and that’s why GPG is good”, but I read that as an argument why there’s a very high probability that one of those things is going to spill the beans, plaintext, in an email anyway.
  - nmadden 7y ago
    No, I'm not defending PGP. Even without the automation, every PGP-encrypted email almost certainly results in a bunch of internal plaintext emails between employees that could easily accidentally cc the wrong person, etc. I'm just pointing out that the chances of replacing PGP with something genuinely secure for these kinds of use-cases are close to zero.