4 ms·

> However, I do not want to risk storing absolutely sensitive data (browsing history, auth cookies, credentials, etc) at some third party. FWIW Firefox says th

> However, I do not want to risk storing absolutely sensitive data (browsing history, auth cookies, credentials, etc) at some third party. FWIW Firefox says they do not have the capability to read your data: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gorgoiler 4y ago
Unfortunately, this isn’t really true. The party which holds your data is also the party which ships evergreen versions of the software used to decrypt that data. There’s nothing to stop the government in Firefox’s jurisdiction from bullying them into adding a backdoor. We can assume the bullying is ongoing. I like to imagine it as having a safe deposit box provided by a local bank. I have the only key and have proven that to be the case. I also store the key at home in another safe which is regularly serviced by bank employees. While they probably don’t abuse their position in the latter to access the former, it would be completely wrong to say they do not have the capability to get at my stuff. All that aside, I love FF sync and rely on it everyday for work stuff. It is like magic and I’m very grateful for the feature. I am realistic about the NSA’s level of interest in my work calendar and the threat they pose to my day to day life.
- arkadiyt 4y ago
  > The party which holds your data is also the party which ships evergreen versions of the software used to decrypt that data. There’s nothing to stop the government in Firefox’s jurisdiction from bullying them into adding a backdoor. Hosting your own sync server doesn't prevent this.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    The government can’t bully you into decrypting your own data or releasing your encrypted data without you knowing.
    - robjan 4y ago
      If Firefox is backdoored, as per GP's hypothetical situation, your data can be sent to a sync server other than the one you configured. The only realistic way to stop it would be to only use a specific audited version of FF. If that's the case then there's no need to use your own sync server because you already know it's not backdoored.
    - robin_reala 4y ago
      Which government? Because there absolutely are governments that can, UK for example.
      - tinus_hn 4y ago
        The UK government can bully you into telling them things without you knowing you told them those things? That sounds interesting, how does that work?
        robin_reala 4y ago
        Oops, misread the “without you knowing” bit.
    - mrmanner 4y ago
      They can bully the open sourcerer into adding a backdoor to the code, then use that backdoor without you noticing.
      - tinus_hn 4y ago
        There can be no guarantee you’d not notice, but more importantly if you go down that path you can’t trust anything and that is a silly reason to not build defense in depth and not entrust your secrets to the cloud.
- dodgerdan 4y ago
  Then you can’t trust the FF code not to send a copy to their own servers also.
  - alias_neo 4y ago
    Why would you need to trust it? Just block access to their servers on your network. Anyone _that_ concerned can operate a whitelist-only policy on their network, now nothing goes anywhere they don't want it to.
    - hosteur 4y ago
      White-listing what addresses a web browser can reach seems to go against the intended use - you know, to browse the web. Edit: Also, I don't think this is as much about trust as it is about avoiding being part of the huge target that the centrally hosted Firefox Sync servers must be. While Firefox developers and Mozilla might be wholly trustworthy, they might become compromised by some configuration error or zero day vulnerability. So someone might steal the sweet sweet treasure that is in the Sync servers. Now, that is encrypted of course, but they might have made a simple error[1] in how encryption is implemented and the encryption may be defeated. [1]: See for example: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...
      - bluGill 4y ago
        If you have something you are that concerned about then you should whitelist everything. Note that the whitelist needs to be one both sides, the server and the users. This along with lots of other security protections, some of which are a lot stronger than a whitelist.
      - parminya 4y ago
        Instead of directly exposing the server to the internet, you could keep it behind a VPN. That way you only need to keep the VPN secure, the VPN serves as a whitelist.
      - 4y ago
- iso1631 4y ago
  > I have the only key and have proven that to be the case Locksmiths will get through that lock in a couple of minutes, probably without you ever knowing The only thing stopping the bank and/or government from accessing your box is the law
  - danuker 4y ago
    And we all know from Snowden/Assange how effective that is.
  - ptsneves 4y ago
    This is what I learned over the years after my techno fantasies were confronted with the real world. Technology can give you good protections to make blanket or mass interference on people’s affairs costly, but the illusion of safety it gives is over emphasised. A very motivated actor will just knock on your door and ask you for the key(digital or otherwise) at gun point and it is game over. Like one of the replies above, model your threat and enjoy like free of paranoia. It is a beautiful world out there! Ah and be politically active so your representatives preserve common freedom and well being.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Banks always drill out the lock on a safe deposit box if they need to get in, even though it wouldn't be hard for someone to pick the lock (or so lockpicks who claim to have the ability to check this say, I've never tried to pick the lock on a safe deposit box, and my lockpick skills are not very good so I doubt I could)
HPsquared 4y ago
That's also an option in Chrome, "encrypt sync data with your own sync passphrase"
hosteur 4y ago
> FWIW Firefox says they do not have the capability to read your data: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ The article is from 2018. Isn't this only relating to the old version of Firefox Sync - the one in which self-hosting is actually supported? The design looks reasonable. However, my main problem with it is that putting all this extremely valuable data in one place makes it a huge target. A supply-chain attack or an implementation error in the crypto would be devastating.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gorgoiler 4y ago

Unfortunately, this isn’t really true. The party which holds your data is also the party which ships evergreen versions of the software used to decrypt that data. There’s nothing to stop the government in Firefox’s jurisdiction from bullying them into adding a backdoor. We can assume the bullying is ongoing. I like to imagine it as having a safe deposit box provided by a local bank. I have the only key and have proven that to be the case. I also store the key at home in another safe which is regularly serviced by bank employees. While they probably don’t abuse their position in the latter to access the former, it would be completely wrong to say they do not have the capability to get at my stuff. All that aside, I love FF sync and rely on it everyday for work stuff. It is like magic and I’m very grateful for the feature. I am realistic about the NSA’s level of interest in my work calendar and the threat they pose to my day to day life.

arkadiyt 4y ago
> The party which holds your data is also the party which ships evergreen versions of the software used to decrypt that data. There’s nothing to stop the government in Firefox’s jurisdiction from bullying them into adding a backdoor. Hosting your own sync server doesn't prevent this.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  The government can’t bully you into decrypting your own data or releasing your encrypted data without you knowing.
  - robjan 4y ago
    If Firefox is backdoored, as per GP's hypothetical situation, your data can be sent to a sync server other than the one you configured. The only realistic way to stop it would be to only use a specific audited version of FF. If that's the case then there's no need to use your own sync server because you already know it's not backdoored.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    Which government? Because there absolutely are governments that can, UK for example.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      The UK government can bully you into telling them things without you knowing you told them those things? That sounds interesting, how does that work?
      - robin_reala 4y ago
        Oops, misread the “without you knowing” bit.
  - mrmanner 4y ago
    They can bully the open sourcerer into adding a backdoor to the code, then use that backdoor without you noticing.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      There can be no guarantee you’d not notice, but more importantly if you go down that path you can’t trust anything and that is a silly reason to not build defense in depth and not entrust your secrets to the cloud.
dodgerdan 4y ago
Then you can’t trust the FF code not to send a copy to their own servers also.
- alias_neo 4y ago
  Why would you need to trust it? Just block access to their servers on your network. Anyone _that_ concerned can operate a whitelist-only policy on their network, now nothing goes anywhere they don't want it to.
  - hosteur 4y ago
    White-listing what addresses a web browser can reach seems to go against the intended use - you know, to browse the web. Edit: Also, I don't think this is as much about trust as it is about avoiding being part of the huge target that the centrally hosted Firefox Sync servers must be. While Firefox developers and Mozilla might be wholly trustworthy, they might become compromised by some configuration error or zero day vulnerability. So someone might steal the sweet sweet treasure that is in the Sync servers. Now, that is encrypted of course, but they might have made a simple error[1] in how encryption is implemented and the encryption may be defeated. [1]: See for example: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...
    - bluGill 4y ago
      If you have something you are that concerned about then you should whitelist everything. Note that the whitelist needs to be one both sides, the server and the users. This along with lots of other security protections, some of which are a lot stronger than a whitelist.
    - parminya 4y ago
      Instead of directly exposing the server to the internet, you could keep it behind a VPN. That way you only need to keep the VPN secure, the VPN serves as a whitelist.
    - 4y ago
iso1631 4y ago
> I have the only key and have proven that to be the case Locksmiths will get through that lock in a couple of minutes, probably without you ever knowing The only thing stopping the bank and/or government from accessing your box is the law
- danuker 4y ago
  And we all know from Snowden/Assange how effective that is.
- ptsneves 4y ago
  This is what I learned over the years after my techno fantasies were confronted with the real world. Technology can give you good protections to make blanket or mass interference on people’s affairs costly, but the illusion of safety it gives is over emphasised. A very motivated actor will just knock on your door and ask you for the key(digital or otherwise) at gun point and it is game over. Like one of the replies above, model your threat and enjoy like free of paranoia. It is a beautiful world out there! Ah and be politically active so your representatives preserve common freedom and well being.
bluGill 4y ago
Banks always drill out the lock on a safe deposit box if they need to get in, even though it wouldn't be hard for someone to pick the lock (or so lockpicks who claim to have the ability to check this say, I've never tried to pick the lock on a safe deposit box, and my lockpick skills are not very good so I doubt I could)

HPsquared 4y ago

That's also an option in Chrome, "encrypt sync data with your own sync passphrase"

hosteur 4y ago

> FWIW Firefox says they do not have the capability to read your data: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/ The article is from 2018. Isn't this only relating to the old version of Firefox Sync - the one in which self-hosting is actually supported? The design looks reasonable. However, my main problem with it is that putting all this extremely valuable data in one place makes it a huge target. A supply-chain attack or an implementation error in the crypto would be devastating.