4 ms·

PGP isn't great either: https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html Better options

PGP isn't great either: https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html Better options for PGP use cases: - AWS Encryption SDK: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/encryption-sdk/latest/developer-guide/introduction.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/encryption-sdk/latest/developer-... - age https://age-encryption.org https://age-encryption.org - Magic Wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole - NaCl/libsodium (and/or usability wrappers) https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/ https://libsodium.gitbook.io/doc/ Better options for JWE use cases: - PASETO: https://paseto.io https://paseto.io - Branca: https://branca.io https://branca.io

kyrra 6y ago
PGP definitely has it's issues. It is a good tool for dealing with files, but yeah, it has it's problems. It looks like Google's security team prefers the use of Tink[0] when having to encrypt things. [0] https://github.com/google/tink https://github.com/google/tink
- CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
  Yes, Tink is acceptable too. :)
- cordite 6y ago
  Tink is great! I wish there were more supported languages. AEAD and AWS KMS to decrypt the key set is perfect for our needs.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Tink is fantastic.
stock_toaster 6y ago
What are the main differences between Branca and PASETO? Based on my brief reading of both, it seems like the main differences are: * Branca has no signing mode, just authenticated encryption (eg. only "local" mode) * Branca's payload is just arbitrary bytes, whereas PASETO has a defined payload format * Seems like the same ciphers are used for Branca and PASETO v2/local. Is that a fair assessment?
- CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
  Yep, that's a fair assessment. If you want ultra-simplicity and don't need clearsigned tokens (i.e. signed by a third party), you can get away with just using Branca. PASETO covers both use cases.
  - e12e 6y ago
    Hm, I think I prefer branca from a quick look (simpler is better). I'm a little worried that both seem to hide away datestamp/validity though. Branca notes checking the timestamp as optional - I couldn't tell what paseto does by default - other than a reference to a timestamp in the implentor's readme (and then only as an example parameter to the php code). Paseto does helpfully state that there's no replay protection - so don't use it for stateless (serveless) session tokens. But to both/either default to some kind of timeout? I don't really see any use cases where I'd want infinite validity - so in addition to sane algorithms, sane/required exipery seems like it should be part of such things? I think I might want a serial and a black-list too.. But maybe there are cases where invalidation aren't ever needed? I can't think of one right now.
    - CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
      PASETO has the same "claims" as JWT, except they're ISO 8601 timestamps rather than integers (UNIX timestamps). They're not required (as they weren't in JWT). If you want to use them, use them. The parser will validate them if you want it to. https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/src/Rules/NotExpired.php https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/src/Rules/No... https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs/02-PHP-Library#decoding-tokens https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs/02-PHP-...
      - e12e 6y ago
        Thanks for the pointers - I'd looked at that, I think, but missed the add-rule bit. But to be clear, it's easy to set up the validating service so that it accepts a token with expired timestamp as valid - it's the default to not check the timestamp if present? A token without timestamp will never be valid if a rule for checking timestamp is added in the parser?
kyrra 6y ago
To come back to one other point. Why Google payments uses PGP: because all other payment companies in the world do too. We work with many different companies, and when dealing with files, they all figured out how to use PGP 20+ years ago and probably won't change unless they are forced to. :) (googler opinions are my own)

kyrra 6y ago

PGP definitely has it's issues. It is a good tool for dealing with files, but yeah, it has it's problems. It looks like Google's security team prefers the use of Tink[0] when having to encrypt things. [0] https://github.com/google/tink https://github.com/google/tink

CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
Yes, Tink is acceptable too. :)
cordite 6y ago
Tink is great! I wish there were more supported languages. AEAD and AWS KMS to decrypt the key set is perfect for our needs.
tptacek 6y ago
Tink is fantastic.

stock_toaster 6y ago

What are the main differences between Branca and PASETO? Based on my brief reading of both, it seems like the main differences are: * Branca has no signing mode, just authenticated encryption (eg. only "local" mode) * Branca's payload is just arbitrary bytes, whereas PASETO has a defined payload format * Seems like the same ciphers are used for Branca and PASETO v2/local. Is that a fair assessment?

CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
Yep, that's a fair assessment. If you want ultra-simplicity and don't need clearsigned tokens (i.e. signed by a third party), you can get away with just using Branca. PASETO covers both use cases.
- e12e 6y ago
  Hm, I think I prefer branca from a quick look (simpler is better). I'm a little worried that both seem to hide away datestamp/validity though. Branca notes checking the timestamp as optional - I couldn't tell what paseto does by default - other than a reference to a timestamp in the implentor's readme (and then only as an example parameter to the php code). Paseto does helpfully state that there's no replay protection - so don't use it for stateless (serveless) session tokens. But to both/either default to some kind of timeout? I don't really see any use cases where I'd want infinite validity - so in addition to sane algorithms, sane/required exipery seems like it should be part of such things? I think I might want a serial and a black-list too.. But maybe there are cases where invalidation aren't ever needed? I can't think of one right now.
  - CiPHPerCoder 6y ago
    PASETO has the same "claims" as JWT, except they're ISO 8601 timestamps rather than integers (UNIX timestamps). They're not required (as they weren't in JWT). If you want to use them, use them. The parser will validate them if you want it to. https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/src/Rules/NotExpired.php https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/src/Rules/No... https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs/02-PHP-Library#decoding-tokens https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs/02-PHP-...
    - e12e 6y ago
      Thanks for the pointers - I'd looked at that, I think, but missed the add-rule bit. But to be clear, it's easy to set up the validating service so that it accepts a token with expired timestamp as valid - it's the default to not check the timestamp if present? A token without timestamp will never be valid if a rule for checking timestamp is added in the parser?

kyrra 6y ago

To come back to one other point. Why Google payments uses PGP: because all other payment companies in the world do too. We work with many different companies, and when dealing with files, they all figured out how to use PGP 20+ years ago and probably won't change unless they are forced to. :) (googler opinions are my own)