3 ms·

What happens if google gets a "national security letter" that says "hey, we wanna read $NAME's whatsapp messages". In the scenario without this system, google n

by rocqua 5y ago

What happens if google gets a "national security letter" that says "hey, we wanna read $NAME's whatsapp messages". In the scenario without this system, google needs to use their control over the OS, the installer and the SDK to somehow deliver a changed version of the app, or run an exploit / backdoor against that app from other code they control. Excluding the exploit and pre-existing backdoor, that is something they could refuse to do somewhat easily. Compare that to if google has the signing keys for updates to whatsapp. Then the national security letter could just state "hey, here is an update to whatsapp, please sign it with the appropriate keys". That is so much harder for Google to refuse. I have a lot more faith that google would not comply with the first national security letter than with the second.

nodamage 5y ago
I don't really see a meaningful difference between those two scenarios. In both cases Google has the ability to exploit your app and you have to trust them not to do it. Whether one approach is more politically acceptable than the other is an interesting question but I don't know if it matters that much in the end.
- rocqua 5y ago
  > Whether one approach is more politically acceptable than the other is an interesting question but I don't know if it matters that much in the end. It seems to me that if one approach is so politically unacceptable as to be quite unlikely, and the other approach is so politically acceptable as to be feasible, that is highly relevant. In the first scenario, this is just a hypothetical attack google could do if they were evil. In the second scenario this is a realistic attack we need to consider could happen. The difference between "hypothetical" and "realistic" matters quite a bit.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Or, Google will tell the NSA to get stuffed because NSLs don't compel them to ship code updates to devices.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Compare the NSA asking Google "please sign this update to signal". To the FBI asking Apple "please sign this this new OS that allows brute-forcing". The second case was apparently feasible enough that the FBI thought it was worth trying in open court. I don't think the first case is that dissimilar. And I think there is a decent chance that the NSA/CIA has stronger pressure methods than what the FBI tried in the San-bernedino case. And if not, it seems quite a bit more feasible for new legislation to be written that could be used to force google to cooperate with malicious update signing. It certainly fits with the theme of recent "we should be allowed to read your messages" legislation attempts. Heck, I think it would be one of the more reasonable ways to implement such legislation.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    If these cases are structurally the same and you assume (without evidence) that Google resists less than Apple - then why aren't you worried about OS updates for Android? You've never been able to trust any code running on an Android phone in this case. Hypothetical new legislation could require you to download a NSA rootkit on all of your devices too. Nothing about this feature is uniquely weak to arbitrary legislation.

by rocqua 5y ago

nodamage 5y ago

I don't really see a meaningful difference between those two scenarios. In both cases Google has the ability to exploit your app and you have to trust them not to do it. Whether one approach is more politically acceptable than the other is an interesting question but I don't know if it matters that much in the end.

rocqua 5y ago
> Whether one approach is more politically acceptable than the other is an interesting question but I don't know if it matters that much in the end. It seems to me that if one approach is so politically unacceptable as to be quite unlikely, and the other approach is so politically acceptable as to be feasible, that is highly relevant. In the first scenario, this is just a hypothetical attack google could do if they were evil. In the second scenario this is a realistic attack we need to consider could happen. The difference between "hypothetical" and "realistic" matters quite a bit.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Or, Google will tell the NSA to get stuffed because NSLs don't compel them to ship code updates to devices.

rocqua 5y ago
Compare the NSA asking Google "please sign this update to signal". To the FBI asking Apple "please sign this this new OS that allows brute-forcing". The second case was apparently feasible enough that the FBI thought it was worth trying in open court. I don't think the first case is that dissimilar. And I think there is a decent chance that the NSA/CIA has stronger pressure methods than what the FBI tried in the San-bernedino case. And if not, it seems quite a bit more feasible for new legislation to be written that could be used to force google to cooperate with malicious update signing. It certainly fits with the theme of recent "we should be allowed to read your messages" legislation attempts. Heck, I think it would be one of the more reasonable ways to implement such legislation.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  If these cases are structurally the same and you assume (without evidence) that Google resists less than Apple - then why aren't you worried about OS updates for Android? You've never been able to trust any code running on an Android phone in this case. Hypothetical new legislation could require you to download a NSA rootkit on all of your devices too. Nothing about this feature is uniquely weak to arbitrary legislation.