3 ms·

Notably still no web standards for end to end encryption. We can crytopgraphically authenticate our identity with cloudservers, but the web has no way to crypto

Notably still no web standards for end to end encryption. We can crytopgraphically authenticate our identity with cloudservers, but the web has no way to cryptographically secure our data. Nitrokey at least understood how biased & half assed this lopsided half-assed standardizing is. Made a first ignored apaa at doing better. Yubico doesnt seem to notice or care, they're happy pushing better ways to uniquely identify ourselves.

woodruffw 5y ago
The way you're using "end to end encryption" is confusing: many applications of TLS are end-to-end, since they involve a user communicating with a server (rather than a server brokering communications between multiple users). It doesn't make a lot of sense to standardize E2EE outside of a specific use case, since the "end" is subject to semantic squabbling. That being said, there's an IETF working group (do they count as a web standards group?) actively developing a standard E2EE messaging protocol[1]. [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mls/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mls/about/
- rektide 5y ago
  A thing running on my computer should be able to communicate on a way no intermediary can decrypt with your computer. This is not nearly so fuzzy as you imply. Signal gets it. Plenty of online systems can advertise & do end to end encryption. Your softened down incorrect definition is a mis-example: end to server to end is not e2e encryption. Security keys should be useful on the web for end encryption. They are not. There is nothing to debate about this situation, itcs well defined & clear. The web is missing a huge gap.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Signal is a chat app (a very good one!), not a generic application layer like HTTP. When we're talking about the breadth of the services available on the web, there are plenty of contexts in which TLS is an E2E scheme. Not every use of TLS is E2E, but I didn't claim that.
    - rektide 5y ago
      I dont know what case you are trying to make? Should we not create cryptographic storage on the web? Is that not ok? Do you think there's anything that would keep us from using secure keys for encrypting storage? Is there some barrier you perceieve to why the web couldnt make use of such a capability? I have no clue why you are building a case out for the web being something special & different & weird & hard to expect basic common sense secure cryptography from. Nitrokey had a pretty basic simple sensible early draft spec. Having some storage & a key that alone cam decrypt it seems trivially obvious. Not sure what kind of smoke you are attempting to blow on this idea. TLS has absolutely nothing to do with this. The idea of e2e messaging usually is that you could send the message over untrusted links just fine. The other party could validate & decrypt it. Discussion on TLS seems wildly off topic/tangenti to the kind of e2e storage that messaging apps do, and that secure end to end storage entails. Edit: to your credit, the MLS link you have above is indeed relevant.
      - raggi 5y ago
        https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1462 https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1462
  - rektide 5y ago
    A lot of very wrong immoral & silent downvoters: you are degrading the web & attacking society. Explain your downvotes & leave somrthing contestable & arguable. Why all the cheapass anti-security dowvotes? Why sign up to degrade security like this? What the frag?
    - Godel_unicode 5y ago
      I suspect many people are down voting your tone. Regardless of the merit of your arguments, and I make no claim about them, incivility and petulance will always undermine them.
    - Beltalowda 5y ago
      I downvoted because your posts are vague complaints containing little details, and when people engage in good faith you respond with scorn because those poor idiots haven't understood you properly. I'd argue this is because you haven't explained your point very well. And this kind of attitude is specifically the type of thing that's not appreciated on HN.
zie 5y ago
> Notably still no web standards for end to end encryption TLS is end to end encryption. Maybe you are wanting something like Noise[0]? It's already a standard in many respects and nacl's crypto_box[1] stuff also exists. Why should it be a "web standard"? Browsers are already stupidly complicated(arguably as complicated as operating systems). I'd argue they don't need more complexity. > Nitrokey at least understood how biased & half assed this lopsided half-assed standardizing is Well webauthn is specific to one thing only. It doesn't want to get into all the other things, there are good solutions for almost all of that stuff already. > Yubico doesnt seem to notice or care, they're happy pushing better ways to uniquely identify ourselves. For E2E encryption, you have to uniquely prove your identity or it's pointless. Thankfully webauthn just specifies the crypto part and doesn't mandate personal identification. 0: https://noiseprotocol.org/ https://noiseprotocol.org/ 1: https://nacl.cr.yp.to/box.html https://nacl.cr.yp.to/box.html
- rektide 5y ago
  this feels like yet more inordinately & vastly incorrect obvious hogwash. how is tls end to end? it's literally you to your immediate service: it will never ever be end to end by definition. could it be any more obvious? why does such an obviously irrelevamt non-sequitor keep showing up? if the server you are talking with can decrypt it, it means it's not a secure channel. definitional, inarguable, basic. how can are all the replies so wrong? what is this conspiracy against reason? what definition of e2e encryption are you using, when i communicate with my friend, and how does it accomodate this twisted ass warped "google can so read my messages" flagrantly incorrect viciously wrong misinformation view that merely having singleink tls security that you & other dude argue for? why is everyone so up on being immoral & misleading & wrong here about end-to-end encryptiom? it secures a connection. but data going from party to party traverses multiple parties. end to end encryption, by definition, is not encryption between you & the service: it's between you & the other party. intensely fantastically stupidly wrong & insistent argumentation keeps happening. i keep getting downvoted, ya'll keep making wrong posts with way off base claims. so sad. hopeless universe. again, folks lole nitrokey saw exactly this weakness, this inability for current web crypto standards tk ever help secure user data from the services they connected to, something tls cannot ever help with. but ya'll keep focusing.on the tiniestost irrelevant hop of data, keep insisting one leg of encrytion is equal to end to end. no.

woodruffw 5y ago

The way you're using "end to end encryption" is confusing: many applications of TLS are end-to-end, since they involve a user communicating with a server (rather than a server brokering communications between multiple users). It doesn't make a lot of sense to standardize E2EE outside of a specific use case, since the "end" is subject to semantic squabbling. That being said, there's an IETF working group (do they count as a web standards group?) actively developing a standard E2EE messaging protocol[1]. [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mls/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mls/about/

rektide 5y ago
A thing running on my computer should be able to communicate on a way no intermediary can decrypt with your computer. This is not nearly so fuzzy as you imply. Signal gets it. Plenty of online systems can advertise & do end to end encryption. Your softened down incorrect definition is a mis-example: end to server to end is not e2e encryption. Security keys should be useful on the web for end encryption. They are not. There is nothing to debate about this situation, itcs well defined & clear. The web is missing a huge gap.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Signal is a chat app (a very good one!), not a generic application layer like HTTP. When we're talking about the breadth of the services available on the web, there are plenty of contexts in which TLS is an E2E scheme. Not every use of TLS is E2E, but I didn't claim that.
  - rektide 5y ago
    I dont know what case you are trying to make? Should we not create cryptographic storage on the web? Is that not ok? Do you think there's anything that would keep us from using secure keys for encrypting storage? Is there some barrier you perceieve to why the web couldnt make use of such a capability? I have no clue why you are building a case out for the web being something special & different & weird & hard to expect basic common sense secure cryptography from. Nitrokey had a pretty basic simple sensible early draft spec. Having some storage & a key that alone cam decrypt it seems trivially obvious. Not sure what kind of smoke you are attempting to blow on this idea. TLS has absolutely nothing to do with this. The idea of e2e messaging usually is that you could send the message over untrusted links just fine. The other party could validate & decrypt it. Discussion on TLS seems wildly off topic/tangenti to the kind of e2e storage that messaging apps do, and that secure end to end storage entails. Edit: to your credit, the MLS link you have above is indeed relevant.
    - raggi 5y ago
      https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1462 https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1462
- rektide 5y ago
  A lot of very wrong immoral & silent downvoters: you are degrading the web & attacking society. Explain your downvotes & leave somrthing contestable & arguable. Why all the cheapass anti-security dowvotes? Why sign up to degrade security like this? What the frag?
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    I suspect many people are down voting your tone. Regardless of the merit of your arguments, and I make no claim about them, incivility and petulance will always undermine them.
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    I downvoted because your posts are vague complaints containing little details, and when people engage in good faith you respond with scorn because those poor idiots haven't understood you properly. I'd argue this is because you haven't explained your point very well. And this kind of attitude is specifically the type of thing that's not appreciated on HN.

zie 5y ago

> Notably still no web standards for end to end encryption TLS is end to end encryption. Maybe you are wanting something like Noise[0]? It's already a standard in many respects and nacl's crypto_box[1] stuff also exists. Why should it be a "web standard"? Browsers are already stupidly complicated(arguably as complicated as operating systems). I'd argue they don't need more complexity. > Nitrokey at least understood how biased & half assed this lopsided half-assed standardizing is Well webauthn is specific to one thing only. It doesn't want to get into all the other things, there are good solutions for almost all of that stuff already. > Yubico doesnt seem to notice or care, they're happy pushing better ways to uniquely identify ourselves. For E2E encryption, you have to uniquely prove your identity or it's pointless. Thankfully webauthn just specifies the crypto part and doesn't mandate personal identification. 0: https://noiseprotocol.org/ https://noiseprotocol.org/ 1: https://nacl.cr.yp.to/box.html https://nacl.cr.yp.to/box.html

rektide 5y ago
this feels like yet more inordinately & vastly incorrect obvious hogwash. how is tls end to end? it's literally you to your immediate service: it will never ever be end to end by definition. could it be any more obvious? why does such an obviously irrelevamt non-sequitor keep showing up? if the server you are talking with can decrypt it, it means it's not a secure channel. definitional, inarguable, basic. how can are all the replies so wrong? what is this conspiracy against reason? what definition of e2e encryption are you using, when i communicate with my friend, and how does it accomodate this twisted ass warped "google can so read my messages" flagrantly incorrect viciously wrong misinformation view that merely having singleink tls security that you & other dude argue for? why is everyone so up on being immoral & misleading & wrong here about end-to-end encryptiom? it secures a connection. but data going from party to party traverses multiple parties. end to end encryption, by definition, is not encryption between you & the service: it's between you & the other party. intensely fantastically stupidly wrong & insistent argumentation keeps happening. i keep getting downvoted, ya'll keep making wrong posts with way off base claims. so sad. hopeless universe. again, folks lole nitrokey saw exactly this weakness, this inability for current web crypto standards tk ever help secure user data from the services they connected to, something tls cannot ever help with. but ya'll keep focusing.on the tiniestost irrelevant hop of data, keep insisting one leg of encrytion is equal to end to end. no.