12 ms·

Ask HN: Who of the readers here believe this is a true E2E encryption - so that even government can not see the content?

by pulse7 6y ago

MikeKusold 6y ago
They acquired the Keybase team to implement this. If there is a backdoor, I'd expect a mass exodus of the team.
- taxcoder 6y ago
  Interesting. I just added Keybase to my "look at this later" Firefox bookmarks. I wonder if the acquisition will harm Keybase?
  - jamesboehmer 6y ago
    Commits dropped off in April/May of this year, and users in keybase forums elsewhere have been discussing the lack of activity and communication from the team. It's unclear whether they plan to come back to it, fold it into Zoom somehow, or just abandon it. https://github.com/keybase/client/graphs/commit-activity https://github.com/keybase/client/graphs/commit-activity
    - taxcoder 6y ago
      Thanks. I just saw the link that was added to this thread and read the HN discussion from after the announcement.
  - joncrane 6y ago
    > I wonder if the acquisition will harm Keybase? There were many discussions about it when the "Zoom acquires Keybase" story was on the front page of HN, and the overwhelming sentiment was "yes."
  - FullyFunctional 6y ago
    I’m very dependent on Keybase and use it all day. The acquisition is major concern but so far the service has remains stable and responsive. Crossing my fingers.
    - edm0nd 6y ago
      I expect them (Zoom) to clean up and surge some Keybase teams eventually. All of the top teams are related to crypto currency, hentai/porn, and 3d printing firearms. Not very "corporate" or family friendly subjects.
      - FullyFunctional 6y ago
        (purge?) I only use private teams for friends and colleagues but I use the encrypted cloud storage and have lots of git repos. I wasn’t even aware of public teams but between HN, Twitter, and Discord I don’t need more distraction. I’d even gladly pay a monthly subscription if it would guarantee the continued existence.
- jbyers 6y ago
  The author of the blog post is one of the founders of Keybase (and also a member of Hn, maxtaco).
- criddell 6y ago
  What do you mean by backdoor? For example, say they have the capability to add a law enforcement key to the list of keys being used to encrypt the channel to allow eavesdropping. I wouldn't call that a backdoor.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    If that's not a backdoor, what in the world is?
    - criddell 6y ago
      I like Dr. Roberts (Stanford) definition, so I'll just paste it: > A "backdoor" in computing is a method of bypassing the normal method of authentication. Backdoors are usually inserted into a program or algorithm before it is distributed widely. They are often hidden in part of the design of the program or algorithm. In cryptography specifically, a backdoor would allow an intruder to access the encrypted information without having the correct credentials. The backdoor would either a) allow the intruder to guess the access key based on the context of the message or b) allow the intruder to present a skeleton key that will always grant him access. Probably the most famous backdoor is the Dual_EC_DRBG which I believe had a weakness in the random number generator that leaked its internal state.
merelydev 6y ago
Noob question here: is it difficult to implement E2E encryption one would think Zoom has all the resources required to build such a system?
- throwaway373438 6y ago
  Kind of. The real problem is that E2E means losing all server-side videoconferencing features - very few people actually want E2E. It's not an add-on feature. The ramifications are a completely different way of shuttling the data between endpoints.
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    Hence: > Do I have access to all the features of a regular Zoom meeting? > Not right now. Enabling this version of Zoom’s E2EE in your meetings disables certain features, including join before host, cloud recording, streaming, live transcription, Breakout Rooms, polling, 1:1 private chat, and meeting reactions. Some of those features they can bring back, some they might not be able to.
proactivesvcs 6y ago
Well they previously claimed their service was E2E, then there was a furore when it was discovered that was not true, after which they claimed their service was E2E, when it still was not. Considering their growth throughout, why would they waste their time implementing it fully and correctly?
- user5994461 6y ago
  I think you're asking the wrong question. E2E is actively harmful to videoconference beyond two participants. A waste of time is an euphemism, I bet you that it would actively hurt many metrics/teams if done and these would push to have it reverted. A videoconference has to be able to adjust audio and video quality in real time between participants. E2E is a technical barrier to that because the streams are encrypted and harder to work with, it is possible to have E2E but it's hard work and it's resource intensive and it affects reliability.
  - andruby 6y ago
    I haven't read this before that E2E is a barrier to adaptive audio & video quality. Would you care to elaborate or is there a source I could read up on?
    - pimterry 6y ago
      Without E2EE, the server can directly access and manage how the video and audio streams are sent to each client. It can downgrade video for participants who are struggling, prioritize throughput of audio data for certain clients, prioritize higher res video only for the user who's currently speaking, drop individual frames for clients that are getting behind, etc etc. With E2EE, by definition, the server becomes a dumb relay, and all control moves into the clients. Depending on how E2EE is implemented, you then lose the ability to do some or all of these optimizations. There are potential workarounds, but each comes with further tradeoffs in turn, in performance, privacy & complexity. That's not to say that it's completely impossible to optimize given E2EE, as you can move many optimizations to each client, or try to have clients expose just enough data for servers to optimize traffic without being able to read the contents (e.g. by splitting the audio & video streams so the server can manage them independently, or having each client upload separate high & low res video of their own video stream). It definitely makes many optimizations dramatically harder though, creates some serious engineering problems, and in practice rules out some optimizations completely.
upofadown 6y ago
It appears to tick all the boxes other than verifiable client binaries... So ahead of things like iMessage. About the same as stuff like Whatsapp. Behind things like Signal, Telegram, PGP and the like.
- vngzs 6y ago
  PGP can be considered "worse" than some of the other systems because it lacks perfect forward secrecy. If you steal the key, you can decrypt past messages, which is not the case in Signal or others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm
  - upofadown 6y ago
    OK, but that has nothing to do with how end to end the encryption is. PGP pretty much set the standard for the concept. BTW, in practice few people get any benefit out of forward secrecy when used for E2EE messaging as they tend to keep their old messages. Forward secrecy protects against the disclosure of the private key used in such systems. If the attacker can get at your private key then they pretty much for sure get your saved messages. I talked about this in a series of PGP advocacy articles I recently did: * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:forward_secrecy https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:forward_secrecy
  - aborsy 6y ago
    It’s like saying that LUKS is bad because it doesn’t offer forward secrecy, or it’s more “cumbersome”; signal protocol is better. There are different applications with different solutions.
- cataflam 6y ago
  Does Telegram have E2EE for group discussions yet or is it still only for 1:1 ? Honest question, I haven't checked recently.
  - lozf 6y ago
    Unfortunately still only 1:1 And on mobile only. E2EE is not available in group chats or on the desktop client.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WilTimSon 6y ago
Honestly, I know they hired a good team to do it and stand to lose everything if they didn't implement it properly... but they lied about it once and that was so brazen that I won't believe it until it's confirmed by at least a few independent experts. Zoom, in my mind, is synonymous with invaded privacy, poor security and lies.
a1369209993 6y ago
> Who of the readers here believe this is a true E2E encryption - so that even government can not see the content? Pfahahahahahaha. More seriously, my understanding is that Zoom uses automatic updates, so it can never be secure even in the unlikely event the code that's on your machine this week actually does correctly implement end-to-end encryption. Also, if you're trusting Zoom's servers to give you the encryption keys you have a MitM attack waiting to happen.
morpheuskafka 6y ago
I think it won't be designed with a built-in backdoor, but probably also not designed very well. Like WhatsApp instead of Signal. Closed source, edge cases not covered well, etc. Not going to be anyone's go to for high-assurance protection from state actors.
jb775 6y ago
It's kind of a moot point since the government already has backdoors built into operating systems, hardware chips, browsers (therefore can enable screen-sharing + other hardware settings remotely), etc. "True" E2E encryption doesn't really exist nowadays, at least in the context of being spied on by governments. Edit: Direct sources don't really exist for obvious reasons. Google it, and there's plenty of articles to help you read between the lines. If you think the govt isn't capable or interested in this, you're being naive.
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  Do you have a source on that? That's a mighty big claim. Edit: Cool, so no sources then. Now it's a mighty big unverified claim based on what the governments might be capable and willing to do.
- rimliu 6y ago
  Don't forget the chips injected with vaccines! /s, obviously.
mrstubbs 6y ago
With a closed-source client, how do we know Zoom does not add itself as a un-anounced participant in a meeting?? I assume there will be analysis done in the near future by third parties, but even that analysis is not sufficient to protect against a future change or a one-off, court-mandated targeted "switch" to join a un-announced participant to a meeting. The client can be designed to be 'dumb' in this regard.

Ask HN: Who of the readers here believe this is a true E2E encryption - so that even government can not see the content?

by pulse7 6y ago

Ask HN: Who of the readers here believe this is a true E2E encryption - so that even government can not see the content?

MikeKusold 6y ago

They acquired the Keybase team to implement this. If there is a backdoor, I'd expect a mass exodus of the team.

taxcoder 6y ago
Interesting. I just added Keybase to my "look at this later" Firefox bookmarks. I wonder if the acquisition will harm Keybase?
- jamesboehmer 6y ago
  Commits dropped off in April/May of this year, and users in keybase forums elsewhere have been discussing the lack of activity and communication from the team. It's unclear whether they plan to come back to it, fold it into Zoom somehow, or just abandon it. https://github.com/keybase/client/graphs/commit-activity https://github.com/keybase/client/graphs/commit-activity
  - taxcoder 6y ago
    Thanks. I just saw the link that was added to this thread and read the HN discussion from after the announcement.
- joncrane 6y ago
  > I wonder if the acquisition will harm Keybase? There were many discussions about it when the "Zoom acquires Keybase" story was on the front page of HN, and the overwhelming sentiment was "yes."
- FullyFunctional 6y ago
  I’m very dependent on Keybase and use it all day. The acquisition is major concern but so far the service has remains stable and responsive. Crossing my fingers.
  - edm0nd 6y ago
    I expect them (Zoom) to clean up and surge some Keybase teams eventually. All of the top teams are related to crypto currency, hentai/porn, and 3d printing firearms. Not very "corporate" or family friendly subjects.
    - FullyFunctional 6y ago
      (purge?) I only use private teams for friends and colleagues but I use the encrypted cloud storage and have lots of git repos. I wasn’t even aware of public teams but between HN, Twitter, and Discord I don’t need more distraction. I’d even gladly pay a monthly subscription if it would guarantee the continued existence.
jbyers 6y ago
The author of the blog post is one of the founders of Keybase (and also a member of Hn, maxtaco).
criddell 6y ago
What do you mean by backdoor? For example, say they have the capability to add a law enforcement key to the list of keys being used to encrypt the channel to allow eavesdropping. I wouldn't call that a backdoor.
- beervirus 6y ago
  If that's not a backdoor, what in the world is?
  - criddell 6y ago
    I like Dr. Roberts (Stanford) definition, so I'll just paste it: > A "backdoor" in computing is a method of bypassing the normal method of authentication. Backdoors are usually inserted into a program or algorithm before it is distributed widely. They are often hidden in part of the design of the program or algorithm. In cryptography specifically, a backdoor would allow an intruder to access the encrypted information without having the correct credentials. The backdoor would either a) allow the intruder to guess the access key based on the context of the message or b) allow the intruder to present a skeleton key that will always grant him access. Probably the most famous backdoor is the Dual_EC_DRBG which I believe had a weakness in the random number generator that leaked its internal state.

merelydev 6y ago

Noob question here: is it difficult to implement E2E encryption one would think Zoom has all the resources required to build such a system?

throwaway373438 6y ago
Kind of. The real problem is that E2E means losing all server-side videoconferencing features - very few people actually want E2E. It's not an add-on feature. The ramifications are a completely different way of shuttling the data between endpoints.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  Hence: > Do I have access to all the features of a regular Zoom meeting? > Not right now. Enabling this version of Zoom’s E2EE in your meetings disables certain features, including join before host, cloud recording, streaming, live transcription, Breakout Rooms, polling, 1:1 private chat, and meeting reactions. Some of those features they can bring back, some they might not be able to.

proactivesvcs 6y ago

Well they previously claimed their service was E2E, then there was a furore when it was discovered that was not true, after which they claimed their service was E2E, when it still was not. Considering their growth throughout, why would they waste their time implementing it fully and correctly?

user5994461 6y ago
I think you're asking the wrong question. E2E is actively harmful to videoconference beyond two participants. A waste of time is an euphemism, I bet you that it would actively hurt many metrics/teams if done and these would push to have it reverted. A videoconference has to be able to adjust audio and video quality in real time between participants. E2E is a technical barrier to that because the streams are encrypted and harder to work with, it is possible to have E2E but it's hard work and it's resource intensive and it affects reliability.
- andruby 6y ago
  I haven't read this before that E2E is a barrier to adaptive audio & video quality. Would you care to elaborate or is there a source I could read up on?
  - pimterry 6y ago
    Without E2EE, the server can directly access and manage how the video and audio streams are sent to each client. It can downgrade video for participants who are struggling, prioritize throughput of audio data for certain clients, prioritize higher res video only for the user who's currently speaking, drop individual frames for clients that are getting behind, etc etc. With E2EE, by definition, the server becomes a dumb relay, and all control moves into the clients. Depending on how E2EE is implemented, you then lose the ability to do some or all of these optimizations. There are potential workarounds, but each comes with further tradeoffs in turn, in performance, privacy & complexity. That's not to say that it's completely impossible to optimize given E2EE, as you can move many optimizations to each client, or try to have clients expose just enough data for servers to optimize traffic without being able to read the contents (e.g. by splitting the audio & video streams so the server can manage them independently, or having each client upload separate high & low res video of their own video stream). It definitely makes many optimizations dramatically harder though, creates some serious engineering problems, and in practice rules out some optimizations completely.

upofadown 6y ago

It appears to tick all the boxes other than verifiable client binaries... So ahead of things like iMessage. About the same as stuff like Whatsapp. Behind things like Signal, Telegram, PGP and the like.

vngzs 6y ago
PGP can be considered "worse" than some of the other systems because it lacks perfect forward secrecy. If you steal the key, you can decrypt past messages, which is not the case in Signal or others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm
- upofadown 6y ago
  OK, but that has nothing to do with how end to end the encryption is. PGP pretty much set the standard for the concept. BTW, in practice few people get any benefit out of forward secrecy when used for E2EE messaging as they tend to keep their old messages. Forward secrecy protects against the disclosure of the private key used in such systems. If the attacker can get at your private key then they pretty much for sure get your saved messages. I talked about this in a series of PGP advocacy articles I recently did: * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:forward_secrecy https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:forward_secrecy
- aborsy 6y ago
  It’s like saying that LUKS is bad because it doesn’t offer forward secrecy, or it’s more “cumbersome”; signal protocol is better. There are different applications with different solutions.
cataflam 6y ago
Does Telegram have E2EE for group discussions yet or is it still only for 1:1 ? Honest question, I haven't checked recently.
- lozf 6y ago
  Unfortunately still only 1:1 And on mobile only. E2EE is not available in group chats or on the desktop client.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WilTimSon 6y ago

Honestly, I know they hired a good team to do it and stand to lose everything if they didn't implement it properly... but they lied about it once and that was so brazen that I won't believe it until it's confirmed by at least a few independent experts. Zoom, in my mind, is synonymous with invaded privacy, poor security and lies.

a1369209993 6y ago

> Who of the readers here believe this is a true E2E encryption - so that even government can not see the content? Pfahahahahahaha. More seriously, my understanding is that Zoom uses automatic updates, so it can never be secure even in the unlikely event the code that's on your machine this week actually does correctly implement end-to-end encryption. Also, if you're trusting Zoom's servers to give you the encryption keys you have a MitM attack waiting to happen.

morpheuskafka 6y ago

I think it won't be designed with a built-in backdoor, but probably also not designed very well. Like WhatsApp instead of Signal. Closed source, edge cases not covered well, etc. Not going to be anyone's go to for high-assurance protection from state actors.

jb775 6y ago

It's kind of a moot point since the government already has backdoors built into operating systems, hardware chips, browsers (therefore can enable screen-sharing + other hardware settings remotely), etc. "True" E2E encryption doesn't really exist nowadays, at least in the context of being spied on by governments. Edit: Direct sources don't really exist for obvious reasons. Google it, and there's plenty of articles to help you read between the lines. If you think the govt isn't capable or interested in this, you're being naive.

mynameisvlad 6y ago
Do you have a source on that? That's a mighty big claim. Edit: Cool, so no sources then. Now it's a mighty big unverified claim based on what the governments might be capable and willing to do.
rimliu 6y ago
Don't forget the chips injected with vaccines! /s, obviously.

mrstubbs 6y ago

With a closed-source client, how do we know Zoom does not add itself as a un-anounced participant in a meeting?? I assume there will be analysis done in the near future by third parties, but even that analysis is not sufficient to protect against a future change or a one-off, court-mandated targeted "switch" to join a un-announced participant to a meeting. The client can be designed to be 'dumb' in this regard.