7 ms·

WhatsApp announced that they’re adding key transparency to enhance end-to-end encryption verification within their suite of apps. There’s a blog post going into

WhatsApp announced that they’re adding key transparency to enhance end-to-end encryption verification within their suite of apps. There’s a blog post going into details on the engineering blog including announcing that the core logic for managing an auditable key directory is being open-sourced on Github: https://github.com/facebook/akd https://github.com/facebook/akd

rvnx 3y ago
The problem is not technical, FB could write anything, the security of the system is as weak as its weakest link. The problem here is way way behind the computer. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ The weakest link here, is that Facebook has to respect US laws. They don't have a choice there. So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done. Of course, a random user won't have its dog food or gardening communications intercepted, but once you trigger certain patterns, welcome to the new "user trials / feature flags / beta". Not saying it specifically for WhatsApp, it's valid for any US-based app -> and broadly any app where the founders may eventually be arrested by the US (as the US has a lot of extra-jurisdiction power). (think about it, how easy it would be to decrypt Mega.nz file, for example in a real-life scenario. One push of code on one URL to send back the part about the # sign, and done, or to activate new trials in Google Chrome, or to push a Play Store update to single users, etc...). I'd be really surprised that Zuck takes responsibility and ends up in jail because he refuses to execute a legal request regarding imminent terrorism attack (risking penal risk and being charged as helping the criminals, well, there's a plus; that's more time to spend in the Metaverse). The most likely scenario, is that the US-gov is very powerful and capable to enforce laws in their own country and that you have to respect the laws if you want you company to continue. Same with China.
- russell_h 3y ago
  You're describing exactly the problem that key transparency helps to solve. With this rolled out, the WhatsApp app itself will be able to detect, by default without any manual verification, if FB attempts to MITM the connection. While this doesn't make it technically impossible for Facebook to modify the app and servers, it does make it organizationally almost impossible to do so secretly. Such a move would require the involvement of numerous individuals across multiple teams and would be noticeable to security researchers through changes to the app. This approach is taking off in a bunch of similar problem spaces (web PKI, code signing, etc), so very exciting to see it applied here. Randomly, and somewhat weirdly, Facebook actually offered one of the first Certificate Transparency monitoring tools, which made it possible to monitor all certificates issued for your domain using a very similar approach: https://www.facebook.com/notes/3497286220327506/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/3497286220327506/
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Not really ? I don't see what prevents the app from pushing a decoded copy of the conversation ? Even a variant of Skype was caught doing such (we only know about it because they left the server which had the raw logs completely open). And still, Skype is very secure/encrypted/blablabla; which is true, but within the borders of local regulations. https://web.archive.org/web/20090210230204/http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/voip/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210605439 https://web.archive.org/web/20090210230204/http://www.inform... The end comment/advice from the US part is even a bit funny: "travelers should assume that all communications are monitored."
    - dheera 3y ago
      Exactly, without Zuck opening the protocol and sanctioning the use of open-source clients it is not meaningful.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        Somehow I think this is still possible. The engineers behind WhatsApp seem to be very talented, and they may be able to convince Zuck that an open client would increase trust in Meta's brands, and increase usage (which can then be used to promote other Meta's products). If they keep the server-side closed, it's totally fair I think.
        palata 3y ago
        Or open source alternatives will pick up their work, and the WhatsApp engineers will probably be happy about it.
    - russell_h 3y ago
      You're making my point: some Chinese Skype variant did this, back in 2009, and got caught. There's just no way, in real life, for Facebook to add what you're describing to one of the most prominent messaging apps in the world without somebody noticing. I'm not here to tell you that your WhatsApp messages are perfectly secure. If the CIA wants to read your messages they'll probably just hit you with the wrench instead of some FB exec. But I do think that transparency logs are deeply under-appreciated for their ability to make undetected mass-surveillance dramatically more challenging.
- kmac_ 3y ago
  This solves a real issue. Key transparency for SSL certificates introduced years ago by Google surfaced a lot of misissued certificates and fixed large hole in the whole system. Of course, this is for WhatsApp and the impact is smaller, but still. Congrats to Meta team.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Actually, this is exactly what Pavel Durov (Mark Zuckerberg’s counterpart and founder of the Russian Facebook vkontakte) did when Russian authorities asked him to reveal who helped organize the Maidan protests in 2013/2014 https://globalvoices.org/2014/02/22/pro-maidan-video-goes-viral-thanks-to-pavel-durov-russias-zuckerberg/ https://globalvoices.org/2014/02/22/pro-maidan-video-goes-vi... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1146789-durov1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1146789-durov1 (Besides these guys I mean: https://www.ndi.org/eurasia/ukraine https://www.ndi.org/eurasia/ukraine) And he just posted the middle finger on his site. Pretty soon he started receiving the standard “tax evader” treatment (i.e. offices being ransacked, veiled personal threats etc.), his shareholders pushed him out and he and his brother fled the country and started Telegram. Pavel is a true libertarian who’s stood for his beliefs against his own government, and lost control of his company as a result. Unlike Moxie Marlinspike (founder of WhatsApp and also Signal) who claims he is an “anarchist”, Pavel walked the walk. When he started Telegram, he pissed off his US investor who got heat for Telegram being used by ISIS to communicate. The investors were pissed off that they never made a profit on Telegram and was mentally associated with helping ISIS. Although Pavel eventually did take action: https://www.wsj.com/articles/telegram-app-tackles-islamic-state-online-propaganda-11574789617 https://www.wsj.com/articles/telegram-app-tackles-islamic-st... Pavel also claims his team was approached by the CIA multiple times and they successfully resisted it. Telegram offices are nowhere to be found in Dubai: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8mWJUM7x4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8mWJUM7x4 That is how you run a free speech absolutist social network that governments all want to control. Telegram is probably the most secure and trusted centralized social network (with Signal a distant second). But that is insane. We don’t have to trust Pavel or Moxie to be our “last line of defense.” Why do we rely on giant, centralized corporations to host all our private conversations? This was my response to Moxie’s critique of Web3 and decentralization: https://community.intercoin.app/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram-and-why-decentralization-matters/ https://community.intercoin.app/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...
  - sgjohnson 3y ago
    So why the fuck Telegram is not e2e encrypted by default, and why are group chats not e2e encrypted? Not to mention that even when chats are e2e encrypted, they are encrypted using their proprietary algorithm?
- hangonhn 3y ago
  > So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done. Yep. FISA Section 702 allows that but supposedly only if you're not in the US and not an US citizen. Will an American get caught up the in the net? Maybe? Oh and it doesn't require a warrant. It's set to expire the end of this year but they've been known to renew it. https://www.eff.org/702-spying https://www.eff.org/702-spying
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  Because of my handle, I would appear to be biased but here is a popular Indian news article around WhatsApp. https://scroll.in/article/1044425/how-a-cross-border-love-story-illustrates-the-extent-of-whatsapp-surveillance-in-india https://scroll.in/article/1044425/how-a-cross-border-love-st... The fact is, Indian govt has long been able to intercept WhatsApp and failing which they force group admins to get "registered" https://thenextweb.com/news/kashmirs-police-want-people-to-register-their-whatsapp-groups https://thenextweb.com/news/kashmirs-police-want-people-to-r... With local Intel suggesting malware being installed when admins to go the station for "registration". Remember, this was before all the state sponsored malware came into light a few years ago so we locally have known this for quite some time now.
gouggoug 3y ago
I can’t really put my finger on why, but this comment looks like it came straight from chatGPT. Did it?
- imwillofficial 3y ago
  Cut this crap out. This type of questioning all the time will not be good for HN.
  - axus 3y ago
    Using chatGPT to make a comment isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd say the curiosity about how the comment was written is a good thing, as long as it's not a criticism.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Sure, but it's still pretty rude because it's usually baseless. And as you said, it doesn't even really matter. If the comment is bad, just downvote it. If it's good enough, why even bring it up?
      - InCityDreams 3y ago
        "Don't ask rude questions", usually said by those with something to hide. Obviously there's a current novelty factor with cgpt answers, and i for one am happy people 'challenge' them. If the comment isn't what you like, ignore it?
        imwillofficial 3y ago
        This is starting witch hunts for ai generated comments, attempting to discredit the comment by its format, not its content. This violates the goodwill we all share in conversation on HN.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Why would someone even bother using a chatbot to write a comment? Just writing it would be a lot quicker. There isn't really anything to gain here with that either.

rvnx 3y ago

The problem is not technical, FB could write anything, the security of the system is as weak as its weakest link. The problem here is way way behind the computer. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ The weakest link here, is that Facebook has to respect US laws. They don't have a choice there. So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done. Of course, a random user won't have its dog food or gardening communications intercepted, but once you trigger certain patterns, welcome to the new "user trials / feature flags / beta". Not saying it specifically for WhatsApp, it's valid for any US-based app -> and broadly any app where the founders may eventually be arrested by the US (as the US has a lot of extra-jurisdiction power). (think about it, how easy it would be to decrypt Mega.nz file, for example in a real-life scenario. One push of code on one URL to send back the part about the # sign, and done, or to activate new trials in Google Chrome, or to push a Play Store update to single users, etc...). I'd be really surprised that Zuck takes responsibility and ends up in jail because he refuses to execute a legal request regarding imminent terrorism attack (risking penal risk and being charged as helping the criminals, well, there's a plus; that's more time to spend in the Metaverse). The most likely scenario, is that the US-gov is very powerful and capable to enforce laws in their own country and that you have to respect the laws if you want you company to continue. Same with China.

russell_h 3y ago
You're describing exactly the problem that key transparency helps to solve. With this rolled out, the WhatsApp app itself will be able to detect, by default without any manual verification, if FB attempts to MITM the connection. While this doesn't make it technically impossible for Facebook to modify the app and servers, it does make it organizationally almost impossible to do so secretly. Such a move would require the involvement of numerous individuals across multiple teams and would be noticeable to security researchers through changes to the app. This approach is taking off in a bunch of similar problem spaces (web PKI, code signing, etc), so very exciting to see it applied here. Randomly, and somewhat weirdly, Facebook actually offered one of the first Certificate Transparency monitoring tools, which made it possible to monitor all certificates issued for your domain using a very similar approach: https://www.facebook.com/notes/3497286220327506/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/3497286220327506/
- rvnx 3y ago
  Not really ? I don't see what prevents the app from pushing a decoded copy of the conversation ? Even a variant of Skype was caught doing such (we only know about it because they left the server which had the raw logs completely open). And still, Skype is very secure/encrypted/blablabla; which is true, but within the borders of local regulations. https://web.archive.org/web/20090210230204/http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/voip/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210605439 https://web.archive.org/web/20090210230204/http://www.inform... The end comment/advice from the US part is even a bit funny: "travelers should assume that all communications are monitored."
  - dheera 3y ago
    Exactly, without Zuck opening the protocol and sanctioning the use of open-source clients it is not meaningful.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      Somehow I think this is still possible. The engineers behind WhatsApp seem to be very talented, and they may be able to convince Zuck that an open client would increase trust in Meta's brands, and increase usage (which can then be used to promote other Meta's products). If they keep the server-side closed, it's totally fair I think.
      - palata 3y ago
        Or open source alternatives will pick up their work, and the WhatsApp engineers will probably be happy about it.
  - russell_h 3y ago
    You're making my point: some Chinese Skype variant did this, back in 2009, and got caught. There's just no way, in real life, for Facebook to add what you're describing to one of the most prominent messaging apps in the world without somebody noticing. I'm not here to tell you that your WhatsApp messages are perfectly secure. If the CIA wants to read your messages they'll probably just hit you with the wrench instead of some FB exec. But I do think that transparency logs are deeply under-appreciated for their ability to make undetected mass-surveillance dramatically more challenging.
kmac_ 3y ago
This solves a real issue. Key transparency for SSL certificates introduced years ago by Google surfaced a lot of misissued certificates and fixed large hole in the whole system. Of course, this is for WhatsApp and the impact is smaller, but still. Congrats to Meta team.
EGreg 3y ago
Actually, this is exactly what Pavel Durov (Mark Zuckerberg’s counterpart and founder of the Russian Facebook vkontakte) did when Russian authorities asked him to reveal who helped organize the Maidan protests in 2013/2014 https://globalvoices.org/2014/02/22/pro-maidan-video-goes-viral-thanks-to-pavel-durov-russias-zuckerberg/ https://globalvoices.org/2014/02/22/pro-maidan-video-goes-vi... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1146789-durov1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1146789-durov1 (Besides these guys I mean: https://www.ndi.org/eurasia/ukraine https://www.ndi.org/eurasia/ukraine) And he just posted the middle finger on his site. Pretty soon he started receiving the standard “tax evader” treatment (i.e. offices being ransacked, veiled personal threats etc.), his shareholders pushed him out and he and his brother fled the country and started Telegram. Pavel is a true libertarian who’s stood for his beliefs against his own government, and lost control of his company as a result. Unlike Moxie Marlinspike (founder of WhatsApp and also Signal) who claims he is an “anarchist”, Pavel walked the walk. When he started Telegram, he pissed off his US investor who got heat for Telegram being used by ISIS to communicate. The investors were pissed off that they never made a profit on Telegram and was mentally associated with helping ISIS. Although Pavel eventually did take action: https://www.wsj.com/articles/telegram-app-tackles-islamic-state-online-propaganda-11574789617 https://www.wsj.com/articles/telegram-app-tackles-islamic-st... Pavel also claims his team was approached by the CIA multiple times and they successfully resisted it. Telegram offices are nowhere to be found in Dubai: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8mWJUM7x4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8mWJUM7x4 That is how you run a free speech absolutist social network that governments all want to control. Telegram is probably the most secure and trusted centralized social network (with Signal a distant second). But that is insane. We don’t have to trust Pavel or Moxie to be our “last line of defense.” Why do we rely on giant, centralized corporations to host all our private conversations? This was my response to Moxie’s critique of Web3 and decentralization: https://community.intercoin.app/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram-and-why-decentralization-matters/ https://community.intercoin.app/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  So why the fuck Telegram is not e2e encrypted by default, and why are group chats not e2e encrypted? Not to mention that even when chats are e2e encrypted, they are encrypted using their proprietary algorithm?
hangonhn 3y ago
> So, if US law permits or requests in some way interception of communications, or that operators have to report certain activities, then your right to secrecy is done. Yep. FISA Section 702 allows that but supposedly only if you're not in the US and not an US citizen. Will an American get caught up the in the net? Maybe? Oh and it doesn't require a warrant. It's set to expire the end of this year but they've been known to renew it. https://www.eff.org/702-spying https://www.eff.org/702-spying
2Gkashmiri 3y ago
Because of my handle, I would appear to be biased but here is a popular Indian news article around WhatsApp. https://scroll.in/article/1044425/how-a-cross-border-love-story-illustrates-the-extent-of-whatsapp-surveillance-in-india https://scroll.in/article/1044425/how-a-cross-border-love-st... The fact is, Indian govt has long been able to intercept WhatsApp and failing which they force group admins to get "registered" https://thenextweb.com/news/kashmirs-police-want-people-to-register-their-whatsapp-groups https://thenextweb.com/news/kashmirs-police-want-people-to-r... With local Intel suggesting malware being installed when admins to go the station for "registration". Remember, this was before all the state sponsored malware came into light a few years ago so we locally have known this for quite some time now.

gouggoug 3y ago

I can’t really put my finger on why, but this comment looks like it came straight from chatGPT. Did it?

imwillofficial 3y ago
Cut this crap out. This type of questioning all the time will not be good for HN.
- axus 3y ago
  Using chatGPT to make a comment isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd say the curiosity about how the comment was written is a good thing, as long as it's not a criticism.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Sure, but it's still pretty rude because it's usually baseless. And as you said, it doesn't even really matter. If the comment is bad, just downvote it. If it's good enough, why even bring it up?
    - InCityDreams 3y ago
      "Don't ask rude questions", usually said by those with something to hide. Obviously there's a current novelty factor with cgpt answers, and i for one am happy people 'challenge' them. If the comment isn't what you like, ignore it?
      - imwillofficial 3y ago
        This is starting witch hunts for ai generated comments, attempting to discredit the comment by its format, not its content. This violates the goodwill we all share in conversation on HN.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Why would someone even bother using a chatbot to write a comment? Just writing it would be a lot quicker. There isn't really anything to gain here with that either.