3 ms·
This gross oversimplification precludes one from understanding anything but a yes/no answer. The answer is not binary. Like the parent said, delivering the clie
by yazzku 4y ago
This gross oversimplification precludes one from understanding anything but a yes/no answer. The answer is not binary. Like the parent said, delivering the client on every single call makes the rogue update trivial and possibly targeted. Having your software come from, e.g., a bi-annual release Linux distribution, and/or one that focuses on security, makes the rogue update less likely. Not impossible, but still more difficult.
- sowbug 4y agoAs long as the yes/no doesn't have an inversion error, I'm fine with the coarse granularity. Unless you're targeted by an APT, the threat model would consider all of this to be noise. It's just odd to single out Gmail E2E of all things for this reason in a top-level HN comment on this article. Within a reasonable confidence interval, it's irrelevant to anyone already concerned about using Gmail for their high-security data (because they aren't using Gmail!), and irrelevant to everyone else because they don't care (because it's just their email). I'm way more worried about all the dirty little fingers on the hundreds of Rust crates, Python packages, Java libraries, and NPM packages that get slurped, unreviewed, into so much software these days. (But I'm still not actually going to do anything about it.)