3 ms·
It's using end-to-end encryption to address a slightly different threat model than the usual one: the website operator doesn't want the liability/danger of hold
by geofft 7y ago
It's using end-to-end encryption to address a slightly different threat model than the usual one: the website operator doesn't want the liability/danger of holding cleartext data. E2E does solve this even in the browser scenario.
Now an attacker who dumps the server's disks doesn't compromise user data, they'd have to activate modify the website. This raises the bar of a successful targeted attack and aldosterone basically eliminates risk from untargeted attacks, which is well worth doing.
(Also now warrants that can compel disclosure have nothing they can target, eliminating Lavabit-style attacks. There's still the possibility of court orders making you write software like the proposed use of the All Writs Act against Apple, but that's on much less certain legal ground.)
It's true that this doesn't let you avoid trusting the provider, but you're not going to get that anyway - and this scheme is certainly no worse. (Arguably you're not going to get that on native apps either these days, thanks to closed-source app stores and automatic updates, and automatic updates are a very good thing.)
- est31 7y ago> It's true that this doesn't let you avoid trusting the provider, but you're not going to get that anyway - and this scheme is certainly no worse. (Arguably you're not going to get that on native apps either these days, thanks to closed-source app stores and automatic updates, and automatic updates are a very good thing.) There is no guarantee, but security researchers often check the contents of apps like WhatsApp, Threema, etc. However, that doesn't help you if you specifically get a special version of the app that sends your content to the app writers. For websites, how hard this is depends on your infrastructure, but it is more or less trivial. For app stores like Google Play or apple app store, there is no such feature to push a special version to a subset of the population specified by name. You can only push it to entire classes of devices. So suddenly Google, Apple, etc. have to be in on the attack which drastically reduces the number of people who can pull off supply chain attacks. Maybe you should be still worried about the US government, but while Saudi princes can bribe the Threema creator, they can't compel Apple to push a malicious update the Threema creator signed to select people only. So they'll have to hack the device via other means.
- derefr 7y ago> For app stores like Google Play or apple app store, there is no such feature to push a special version to a subset of the population specified by name. So suddenly Google, Apple, etc. have to be in on the attack... With the Android ecosystem specifically, because the OS base-image is customized by the device OEM, an interested state actor can inject a rootkit into devices in their own local market merely by suborning their domestic OEMs, and then manipulating trade tariffs to ensure that domestic citizens are incentivized to buy domestic OEM phone brands. (Thankfully, this doesn't apply to devices sold into foreign markets, as nobody can predict what brand of phone an arbitrary foreign-citizen person-of-interest is going to choose to buy. Even if they contain the rootkit, there's low likelihood of there being a foreign surveillance system set up specifically with the hopes of seeing what foreign buyers of domestic-OEM devices are up to.)
- vbezhenar 7y agoAFAIK Google Play serves apk signed by a developer. So it can't just serve another apk without possessing developer private key. So this attack is possible but would require coordinating few parties. On the contrary, Apple AppStore signs the binary with its own key, so they can serve whatever they want to whoever they want and nobody will notice.