3 ms·
Does anything qualify as 'real crypto'? Every implementation will always and forever have weaknesses. I don't have a problem with someone putting together a pac
by thinner 15y ago
Does anything qualify as 'real crypto'? Every implementation will always and forever have weaknesses. I don't have a problem with someone putting together a package that makes it easy to do crypto stronger than rot13 - isn't that a step forward? We'd all like GPG/PGP easy in the browser with native code, but until then, what's wrong with an intermediate step that appears to be at least pretty good and fairly easy to use? Maybe it's not enough for organizing a coup, but for keeping your fantasy football strategies a secret - why not?
- dan_manges 15y agoCode that has been written and/or audited by cryptographers would qualify as 'real crypto.' I don't think anybody has a problem with someone putting together this package; the only problem is with the lack of a proper notice that the code hasn't been audited.
- thinner 15y agoThat's a fair point. The idea that it could be used "for demonstration purposes only", though, seems to go too far in that direction. It seems like a useful library, just not for organizing a coup.
- tptacek 15y agoJavascript cryptography is breakable by teenagers. The attacks don't require a government.
- thinner 15y agoI would argue that rot13 is better than unencrypted, and that this is a step up from rot13. Sure, it's imperfect, but it's still better than nothing, and while I'm only a mediocre programmer, it appears to be easy-to-use, to boot. Better-than-nothing and easy-to-use seems like something more useful than "for demonstration purposes only", don't you think?
- tptacek 15y agoI am fine with stipulating that Javascript cryptography is approximately as good as rot13, and so we can move on.
- thinner 15y agoReally? You can't concede that an implementation like this is better than rot13?
- cipherpunk 15y agoIf you're in a position to intercept the traffic, then you can likely rewrite it. That includes the JS.
- cipherpunk 15y agoThe company I work for (who for obvious reasons I will refuse to mention) refuses to implement standard cryptographic practises in its product. Several months after starting there, and after a lot of loud complaining, I managed to get them to switch to using bcrypt instead of plaintext passwords in the backend database. Only in the next release are they switching to using TLS for logins, and even then sometimes defaulting to a clearly fucked Javascript implementation of cryptography to send the password (using public key crypto with global server key that only changes on server restart, with replay attacks galore). The one thing I can say about the JS cryptography is that it normally protects somewhat against passive sniffing attacks, but when it's as broken as this, it doesn't even accomplish that task. This sort of thing seems chronic in the industry, and it's dismaying.
- tptacek 15y agoAnd as we both know, the "passive sniffing attacker" is a myth. If you can sniff packets, you can intercept traffic. We don't reason about security mechanisms by tying the attackers hands behind their back.
- 15y ago
- adrianN 15y agoWhy do you say that? If properly implemented strong crypto is strong, regardless of the language.
- tptacek 15y agoSee the link I posted elsewhere on the thread.