13 ms·

Cult of the Dead Cow wants to save internet privacy with new encryption protocol

141 points by CharlesW 3y ago

eikenberry 3y ago
Link to source code?
- rolph 3y ago
  https://veilid.com/ https://veilid.com/ https://forum.defcon.org/node/246124 https://forum.defcon.org/node/246124 Veilid isn’t quite ready for primetime yet, though it will be soon. The protocol’s creators plan to hold a “launch party” at 2023's DEFCON, the annual cybersecurity conference, in Las Vegas, next week.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    DEF CON has cybersecurity parts but it is not a cybersecurity conference. That would be like calling Comic Con a cosplay conference.
    - bitexploder 3y ago
      Ehm… bold take. It is /the/ Cybersecurity conference along with BH Vegas. It’s scope has grown, but it’s still an infosec conf at its core. That is its defining feature. You are trying to split some very fine hairs that din’t even exist.
      - Forgotthepass8 3y ago
        Is it more prestigious/influential than the CCC?
        j0hnyl 3y ago
        I think so given that it has more of an international audience.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > More info about Veilid will be available- including technical deep-dives and source code- after the launch in August. Black Hat and DefCon are happening this month, so it should drop very shortly.
- greyface- 3y ago
  Only a glimpse, but Python bindings: https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626fadf30239443ad8a56926c45a66b27c4b74c32df5f54cb/veilid-0.1.7.tar.gz https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626...
leoqa 3y ago
“.. the same digital DNA as the Tor browser and the chat app Signal” - what kind of lazy journalism is this. No specifics on the protocol?
- ikmckenz 3y ago
  Specifics are not public yet AFAIK, from their website: > More info about Veilid will be available- including technical deep-dives and source code- after the launch in August.
  - greyface- 3y ago
    It looks like they accidentally published (and yanked) Python bindings to PyPI early today, which provides some clues: https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626fadf30239443ad8a56926c45a66b27c4b74c32df5f54cb/veilid-0.1.7.tar.gz https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626...
unsubstantiated 3y ago
Do cDc members even comprehend the current internet landscape? Is this poised to be in the same vein as the TBL gaffe of making a new internet? Although they're putting in noble efforts, I think they are out of touch with the actual contemporary internet culture. It's not the world they grew up in.
- rolph 3y ago
  https://cultdeadcow.com/about.html https://cultdeadcow.com/about.html
- flangola7 3y ago
  In what way?
- user3939382 3y ago
  I’m sure the members haven’t been in a Han Solo-style cryo freeze and have experienced the same changes you have.
- wmf 3y ago
  Obviously they're not going to dethrone Facebook or anything like that, but Signal has tens of millions of users so it doesn't seem impossible for a new protocol to achieve similar scale.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > Do cDc members even comprehend the current internet landscape? You know they all have professional careers where they have invented foundational technologies and ran large tech companies right? Hands down some of the smartest people I have had the pleasure of meeting.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Yes, and the question is relevant: the issue with tracking and privacy on the web is not the cryptographic protocols.
    - 3y ago
rolph 3y ago
https://cultdeadcow.com/news/veilidparty20230622.html https://cultdeadcow.com/news/veilidparty20230622.html
rolph 3y ago
.:-. .-=+++++++ .. .+++++++++- =#:##: =+++++++++ %@:=@# +++++++++= .@-:@@. -+++++++++. :#=.%@= +++++++++= * #@* . ::-- . ::-- :+++++++++: -* @%. @@: =@@: .@@# .=#@@ ++++++++++ :%%.=@@: .@@: =@@ :+++++++++: :@@::@@+ :=++=: --== .@@: :--=: :==+=@@ =+++++++++ -@-.%@# +@%+==#@%: -@@ .@@: .=@@ +@@+=-=#@@ .+++++++++- -#= #@%. @# @% -@@ .@@: %@* @% =@@ =+++++++++ @* +@@- @@@%%%%%%@@ -@@ .@@: %@* @@+ =@@ +++++++++==@# =@@* @@+ -@@ .@@: %@* @@* =@@ -+++++++++%%.+@@% +@@- :: -@@ .@@: %@* +@@- @@ +++++++++#%@@@: -#@@%%%%- #%@@% %@@% -#@@@#: =%@@#%-@@%+ :+++++++++%@@@# +++++++++@@%. . . .__ , :+++++++++#@- | _.. .._ _.|_ [__) _.._.-+- . +++++++++*+ |___(_](_|[ )(_.[ ) | (_][ | \_| .+++++++=- ._| _____________________________________________________________________ | | | == Your Invitation == | | | | Where: DefCon 31 in Las Vegas | | When: Friday, August 11. Additional details pending. | | Dress Code: Recommended (but not required) dress code- y2k | | 31337 Haxxor threads. Think Zero Cool and Acid | | Burn meet Max Headroom and Franken Gibe. There is | | no contest, but the Bovine Mother is watching, so | | make her proud. \m/ | |_____________________________________________________________________| xXx \\ The herd hath spoken. .ooMen // xXx (End transmission)
jb_gericke 3y ago
So, um, Signal? https://github.com/signalapp https://github.com/signalapp
- mplewis 3y ago
  No, this is a little different from the Signal protocol.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    If the difference is so little, perhaps you could venture to explain it?
  - jcpham2 3y ago
    Signal is what you use if you want your chats subpoenaed
    - CuteDepravity 3y ago
      Can you explain more?
Labo333 3y ago
[dead]
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20010726224437if_/http://www.textfiles.com:80/groups/CDC https://web.archive.org/web/20010726224437if_/http://www.tex... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-beto-orourke/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli... Some years ago I was going through some old laptops, older than many HN readers and commenters no doubt, and these were loaded with old versions of Windows. I decided to see if I could use one by remotely controlling it from a more powerful computer running UNIX-like OS over the local network. It seemed all the popular "remote desktop" software used to do this with these old versions of Windows is long forgotten and difficult to find. "Unsupported", "deprecated", not "modern", yada, yada. So I got a copy of Back Orifice, which is still easy to find, and it worked like a charm. Small, easy to use. Does what it's supposed to do and not much else. This reminded me just how bad software today has become, even worse than it was, and how Microsoft and its partners rely on planned obsolesence and turn perfectly usable computers into e-waste. Windows XP, everyone must stop using it offline because MS wants it to disappear. (As if Microsoft can control what software people choose to run on their computers.) Connect to the internet 24/7 and use "Windows 11" instead. Don't worry, MS has got people covered with its "automatic updates". Command and control from Redmond. This is why I use NetBSD and Linux distributions. The latest release runs fine on all those old laptops. That's what "backwards compatibility" means to me.
- jmspring 3y ago
  "Planned obsolesence"... I get the desire to bash Microsoft at every possible opportunity here, but one thing Microsoft did better than most companies was backward compatibility and the ability to run legacy programs / maintain API compatibility going back years. Windows 3.x -> 95/98 legacy (even 16bit) apps continued to work. There are APIs even in Win10/etc that support old apps. I don't think Microsoft can be one of those "orchestrating planned obsolesence". This comment is particularly inaccurate. There are things that are valid for complaining about Microsoft, but "planned obsolesence"? No.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Maybe not "planned obsolesence", but they do however have a "API incontinence". This is mostly driven from a desire to sell new crap to enterprises. So they rewrite everything and churn out new crap every few years, new APIs, new frameworks, new "this is the way to do X now" and so on. So, them maintaining backwards compatibility for the old stuff is half of the picture. Developers and (especially enteprise customers) are still pushed to adopt some new thing with alarming frequency, and stuff that works perfectly well gets thrown out for the new hotness. This leads to a rat race to keep up with the latest stuff, no updating of old stuff with new functionality, and so on.
Proven 3y ago
[dead]
evbogue 3y ago
Sounds trendy, how does it work?
jazzyjackson 3y ago
The encryption protocols available haven't been the weak link for some time, no one cracks the messages in transit; you just go for the endpoint. If you can hack the OS and exfiltrate screenshots it doesn't matter how secure your app or network channel is. The only approach that's given me hope has been Tin Foil Chat, isolating the keychain from the network. Me and some fellow noisebridgers built a kind of cyberdeck prototype implementing this but couldn't find much interest in commercializing it. Since the input stage is isolated from output, you can't copy paste any public keys but have to enter them manually (448bits as 56 characters) and messages/attachments can't be forwarded. Juice wasn't worth the squeeze overall. We'll see if there's a milder approach here but I don't see anyway to get around the endpoint security. https://github.com/maqp/tfc https://github.com/maqp/tfc
- rapsey 3y ago
  Yeah you're not going to make a business out of it. Secure messaging is a big graveyard of companies.
  - weinzierl 3y ago
    At least not a legal one...
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      Even marketing to criminals is a tough sell, no reason to believe we weren't a 3 letter cutout: > An encrypted chat platform that catered to criminals is actually an FBI sting operation. > Since 2019, the FBI has been secretly operating Anom, a company that pretended to offer encrypted messaging to criminal organizations. In reality, the Anom app would relay to federal investigators a copy of every message sent. https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted-phones-that-actually-copied-their-messages https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted... (this is also in the TFC FAQ as why not to sell a device, trust is not solved by cryptography alone)
      - 3y ago
Animats 3y ago
CdC is still around? I thought they went corporate as @Stake decades ago.[1] [1] https://www.wired.com/story/cult-of-the-dead-cow-at-stake-hackers-excerpt/ https://www.wired.com/story/cult-of-the-dead-cow-at-stake-ha...
- efdee 3y ago
  It was L0pht that was acquired by @stake, not cDc. But there was a lot of overlap.
  - Animats 3y ago
    Oh, right. Thanks.
EGreg 3y ago
You might also like our platform that we’ve been building for 12 years and are preparing to launch: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
w-ll 3y ago
Thats not even a cow skull. lol
- tromp 3y ago
  Indeed; the actual cow skull [1] has the teeth much further recessed from the front. [1] https://www.skullsunlimited.com/products/replica-cow-skull-tq-461 https://www.skullsunlimited.com/products/replica-cow-skull-t...
RadixDLT 3y ago
already posted two days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36983384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36983384
adastra22 3y ago
That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.
- hackeraccount 3y ago
  I think my uncle knew about the Cult of the Dead Cow.
louwrentius 3y ago
Privacy is a political issue, not a technological one. If you vote people in who then ban encryption or demand back doors or a weak algorithm, no amount of tech is going to save your privacy.
- akikoo 3y ago
  > If you vote people in How do you feel the U.S. political system in congress is working currently and with half of the citizens wanting Trump to be the president again?
  - louwrentius 3y ago
    It shows how the billionaires control the media and are making people crazy and distracted so the populace won’t rise up to them. In that context tech encryption and privacy are the least of our concerns
- arlcode 3y ago
  Exactly. The technical side of secure communication is (mostly) a solved problem and there are more than enough competent people in the industry and interest groups to solve upcoming challenges. A piece of (probably actual) paper can disable any of that for most people. And that paper can reach as deep in the tech stack as it needs to in order to achieve its goals. Down to the silicon mask if required. Within the legal framework some companies benefit from protecting users privacy and some don't but, again, this isn't a technological challenge but a political one (for business reasons this time). And yes I get why tech minded people often try to engineer us out of such situations anyway, but in the long term they can only score short term victories while loosing in the long term.
lcof 3y ago
[dead]
GTP 3y ago
> Cult members say their protocol is built from the same digital DNA as the Tor browser and the chat app Signal Then just use those, as they are bettle-tested and received much more scrutiny than this new framework.
jasode 3y ago
>Cult members say their protocol is built from the same digital DNA as the Tor browser If it's built on technical ideas of TOR + IPFS, is it also susceptible to same legal liability exposure? A man from Austria was successfully found guilty of running a Tor exit node because he had child porn flow through it. Him not purposefully allowing child porn traffic did not let him off the hook. He got 5 years probation instead of a jail sentence but it still cost him over $6k in lawyer fees: https://www.google.com/search?q=tor+exit+node+child+porn https://www.google.com/search?q=tor+exit+node+child+porn
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  According to the first result on the query you've linked: > The court noted that experts had found and reconstructed image files from the "lost cluster" of a hard disk containing pornographic depictions of minors. However, it found the accused not guilty of knowingly accessing those images, since it could not be established with the certainty required in criminal proceedings that they had been downloaded by him rather than by the automatic action of a Web browser. I have to wonder how that image ended up on that hard drive. Your run of the mill Tor exit node certainly does not keep copies of the content it spreads on disk. The sentence wasn't about hosting an exit node, it was about offering hosting services to pedophiles. Tor itself wasn't under attack, at least not in that particular criminal case.
stilwelldotdev 3y ago
Wow, looked up to Cult of the Dead Cow in the early 90's as a fledgling little hacker punk and didn't know they were still around. That's cool. And also, this is very cool.
tete 3y ago
I first thought it sounded a bit like Retroshare[1], but now I am not sure. [1] https://retroshare.cc/ https://retroshare.cc/
sph 3y ago
Damn. That's a name that I haven't heard in two decades...
_8j50 3y ago
I am sure a certain potential future governor of texas approves. On a serious note though, ideology aside, the internet hardly needs another encryption protocol. The problem with these approaches is they try to solve everything. Unix and interner philosophy of layered piping (compartmentalization) exists for a reason. How do you establish trust? TOFU? Your app is broke from the start! How do people on the internet establish the other anonymous person is really their anonymous person? Censorship resistance? Hah! How do you dynamically find network access nodes or peers without getting blocked? HTTPS? Well they decrypt that and you shouldn't rely on non-E2EE stuff for such reasons? Does the network rely on domains? Does your app rely on domain names to be found and installed+working? They can block domains and block you in app stores. Domain front? Russia was blocking entire /8's of google and aws because of apps like Signal. This is why you solve problems one layer at a time. All of the problems are listed (and more) require a unique standardized protocol solution that interoperates with other layers. I said ideology aside earlier so let me bring it back and say this: it is a mistake to create any communication system that is censorship resistant but also lacks practical ways to moderate harmful content. This was something I was very passionate about then I decided I don't want to help build something that can be abused and things that censor are not going to be used by most people anyways so no point.

141 points by CharlesW 3y ago

eikenberry 3y ago

Link to source code?

rolph 3y ago
https://veilid.com/ https://veilid.com/ https://forum.defcon.org/node/246124 https://forum.defcon.org/node/246124 Veilid isn’t quite ready for primetime yet, though it will be soon. The protocol’s creators plan to hold a “launch party” at 2023's DEFCON, the annual cybersecurity conference, in Las Vegas, next week.
- flangola7 3y ago
  DEF CON has cybersecurity parts but it is not a cybersecurity conference. That would be like calling Comic Con a cosplay conference.
  - bitexploder 3y ago
    Ehm… bold take. It is /the/ Cybersecurity conference along with BH Vegas. It’s scope has grown, but it’s still an infosec conf at its core. That is its defining feature. You are trying to split some very fine hairs that din’t even exist.
    - Forgotthepass8 3y ago
      Is it more prestigious/influential than the CCC?
      - j0hnyl 3y ago
        I think so given that it has more of an international audience.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> More info about Veilid will be available- including technical deep-dives and source code- after the launch in August. Black Hat and DefCon are happening this month, so it should drop very shortly.
greyface- 3y ago
Only a glimpse, but Python bindings: https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626fadf30239443ad8a56926c45a66b27c4b74c32df5f54cb/veilid-0.1.7.tar.gz https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626...

leoqa 3y ago

“.. the same digital DNA as the Tor browser and the chat app Signal” - what kind of lazy journalism is this. No specifics on the protocol?

ikmckenz 3y ago
Specifics are not public yet AFAIK, from their website: > More info about Veilid will be available- including technical deep-dives and source code- after the launch in August.
- greyface- 3y ago
  It looks like they accidentally published (and yanked) Python bindings to PyPI early today, which provides some clues: https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://pypi.org/project/veilid/0.1.7/ https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626fadf30239443ad8a56926c45a66b27c4b74c32df5f54cb/veilid-0.1.7.tar.gz https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/66/ee/aa2a9319303626...

unsubstantiated 3y ago

Do cDc members even comprehend the current internet landscape? Is this poised to be in the same vein as the TBL gaffe of making a new internet? Although they're putting in noble efforts, I think they are out of touch with the actual contemporary internet culture. It's not the world they grew up in.

rolph 3y ago
https://cultdeadcow.com/about.html https://cultdeadcow.com/about.html
flangola7 3y ago
In what way?
user3939382 3y ago
I’m sure the members haven’t been in a Han Solo-style cryo freeze and have experienced the same changes you have.
wmf 3y ago
Obviously they're not going to dethrone Facebook or anything like that, but Signal has tens of millions of users so it doesn't seem impossible for a new protocol to achieve similar scale.
mike_d 3y ago
> Do cDc members even comprehend the current internet landscape? You know they all have professional careers where they have invented foundational technologies and ran large tech companies right? Hands down some of the smartest people I have had the pleasure of meeting.
- olliej 3y ago
  Yes, and the question is relevant: the issue with tracking and privacy on the web is not the cryptographic protocols.
  - 3y ago

rolph 3y ago

https://cultdeadcow.com/news/veilidparty20230622.html https://cultdeadcow.com/news/veilidparty20230622.html

rolph 3y ago

.:-. .-=+++++++ .. .+++++++++- =#:##: =+++++++++ %@:=@# +++++++++= .@-:@@. -+++++++++. :#=.%@= +++++++++= * #@* . ::-- . ::-- :+++++++++: -* @%. @@: =@@: .@@# .=#@@ ++++++++++ :%%.=@@: .@@: =@@ :+++++++++: :@@::@@+ :=++=: --== .@@: :--=: :==+=@@ =+++++++++ -@-.%@# +@%+==#@%: -@@ .@@: .=@@ +@@+=-=#@@ .+++++++++- -#= #@%. @# @% -@@ .@@: %@* @% =@@ =+++++++++ @* +@@- @@@%%%%%%@@ -@@ .@@: %@* @@+ =@@ +++++++++==@# =@@* @@+ -@@ .@@: %@* @@* =@@ -+++++++++%%.+@@% +@@- :: -@@ .@@: %@* +@@- @@ +++++++++#%@@@: -#@@%%%%- #%@@% %@@% -#@@@#: =%@@#%-@@%+ :+++++++++%@@@# +++++++++@@%. . . .__ , :+++++++++#@- | _.. .._ _.|_ [__) _.._.-+- . +++++++++*+ |___(_](_|[ )(_.[ ) | (_][ | \_| .+++++++=- ._| _____________________________________________________________________ | | | == Your Invitation == | | | | Where: DefCon 31 in Las Vegas | | When: Friday, August 11. Additional details pending. | | Dress Code: Recommended (but not required) dress code- y2k | | 31337 Haxxor threads. Think Zero Cool and Acid | | Burn meet Max Headroom and Franken Gibe. There is | | no contest, but the Bovine Mother is watching, so | | make her proud. \m/ | |_____________________________________________________________________| xXx \\ The herd hath spoken. .ooMen // xXx (End transmission)

jb_gericke 3y ago

So, um, Signal? https://github.com/signalapp https://github.com/signalapp

mplewis 3y ago
No, this is a little different from the Signal protocol.
- clipsy 3y ago
  If the difference is so little, perhaps you could venture to explain it?
- jcpham2 3y ago
  Signal is what you use if you want your chats subpoenaed
  - CuteDepravity 3y ago
    Can you explain more?

Labo333 3y ago

[dead]

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20010726224437if_/http://www.textfiles.com:80/groups/CDC https://web.archive.org/web/20010726224437if_/http://www.tex... https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-beto-orourke/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli... Some years ago I was going through some old laptops, older than many HN readers and commenters no doubt, and these were loaded with old versions of Windows. I decided to see if I could use one by remotely controlling it from a more powerful computer running UNIX-like OS over the local network. It seemed all the popular "remote desktop" software used to do this with these old versions of Windows is long forgotten and difficult to find. "Unsupported", "deprecated", not "modern", yada, yada. So I got a copy of Back Orifice, which is still easy to find, and it worked like a charm. Small, easy to use. Does what it's supposed to do and not much else. This reminded me just how bad software today has become, even worse than it was, and how Microsoft and its partners rely on planned obsolesence and turn perfectly usable computers into e-waste. Windows XP, everyone must stop using it offline because MS wants it to disappear. (As if Microsoft can control what software people choose to run on their computers.) Connect to the internet 24/7 and use "Windows 11" instead. Don't worry, MS has got people covered with its "automatic updates". Command and control from Redmond. This is why I use NetBSD and Linux distributions. The latest release runs fine on all those old laptops. That's what "backwards compatibility" means to me.

jmspring 3y ago
"Planned obsolesence"... I get the desire to bash Microsoft at every possible opportunity here, but one thing Microsoft did better than most companies was backward compatibility and the ability to run legacy programs / maintain API compatibility going back years. Windows 3.x -> 95/98 legacy (even 16bit) apps continued to work. There are APIs even in Win10/etc that support old apps. I don't think Microsoft can be one of those "orchestrating planned obsolesence". This comment is particularly inaccurate. There are things that are valid for complaining about Microsoft, but "planned obsolesence"? No.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Maybe not "planned obsolesence", but they do however have a "API incontinence". This is mostly driven from a desire to sell new crap to enterprises. So they rewrite everything and churn out new crap every few years, new APIs, new frameworks, new "this is the way to do X now" and so on. So, them maintaining backwards compatibility for the old stuff is half of the picture. Developers and (especially enteprise customers) are still pushed to adopt some new thing with alarming frequency, and stuff that works perfectly well gets thrown out for the new hotness. This leads to a rat race to keep up with the latest stuff, no updating of old stuff with new functionality, and so on.

Proven 3y ago

[dead]

evbogue 3y ago

Sounds trendy, how does it work?

jazzyjackson 3y ago

The encryption protocols available haven't been the weak link for some time, no one cracks the messages in transit; you just go for the endpoint. If you can hack the OS and exfiltrate screenshots it doesn't matter how secure your app or network channel is. The only approach that's given me hope has been Tin Foil Chat, isolating the keychain from the network. Me and some fellow noisebridgers built a kind of cyberdeck prototype implementing this but couldn't find much interest in commercializing it. Since the input stage is isolated from output, you can't copy paste any public keys but have to enter them manually (448bits as 56 characters) and messages/attachments can't be forwarded. Juice wasn't worth the squeeze overall. We'll see if there's a milder approach here but I don't see anyway to get around the endpoint security. https://github.com/maqp/tfc https://github.com/maqp/tfc

rapsey 3y ago
Yeah you're not going to make a business out of it. Secure messaging is a big graveyard of companies.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  At least not a legal one...
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    Even marketing to criminals is a tough sell, no reason to believe we weren't a 3 letter cutout: > An encrypted chat platform that catered to criminals is actually an FBI sting operation. > Since 2019, the FBI has been secretly operating Anom, a company that pretended to offer encrypted messaging to criminal organizations. In reality, the Anom app would relay to federal investigators a copy of every message sent. https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted-phones-that-actually-copied-their-messages https://www.pcmag.com/news/fbi-sold-criminals-fake-encrypted... (this is also in the TFC FAQ as why not to sell a device, trust is not solved by cryptography alone)
    - 3y ago

Animats 3y ago

CdC is still around? I thought they went corporate as @Stake decades ago.[1] [1] https://www.wired.com/story/cult-of-the-dead-cow-at-stake-hackers-excerpt/ https://www.wired.com/story/cult-of-the-dead-cow-at-stake-ha...

efdee 3y ago
It was L0pht that was acquired by @stake, not cDc. But there was a lot of overlap.
- Animats 3y ago
  Oh, right. Thanks.

EGreg 3y ago

You might also like our platform that we’ve been building for 12 years and are preparing to launch: https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://github.com/Qbix/Platform

w-ll 3y ago

Thats not even a cow skull. lol

tromp 3y ago
Indeed; the actual cow skull [1] has the teeth much further recessed from the front. [1] https://www.skullsunlimited.com/products/replica-cow-skull-tq-461 https://www.skullsunlimited.com/products/replica-cow-skull-t...

RadixDLT 3y ago

already posted two days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36983384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36983384

adastra22 3y ago

That’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.

hackeraccount 3y ago
I think my uncle knew about the Cult of the Dead Cow.

louwrentius 3y ago

Privacy is a political issue, not a technological one. If you vote people in who then ban encryption or demand back doors or a weak algorithm, no amount of tech is going to save your privacy.

akikoo 3y ago
> If you vote people in How do you feel the U.S. political system in congress is working currently and with half of the citizens wanting Trump to be the president again?
- louwrentius 3y ago
  It shows how the billionaires control the media and are making people crazy and distracted so the populace won’t rise up to them. In that context tech encryption and privacy are the least of our concerns
arlcode 3y ago
Exactly. The technical side of secure communication is (mostly) a solved problem and there are more than enough competent people in the industry and interest groups to solve upcoming challenges. A piece of (probably actual) paper can disable any of that for most people. And that paper can reach as deep in the tech stack as it needs to in order to achieve its goals. Down to the silicon mask if required. Within the legal framework some companies benefit from protecting users privacy and some don't but, again, this isn't a technological challenge but a political one (for business reasons this time). And yes I get why tech minded people often try to engineer us out of such situations anyway, but in the long term they can only score short term victories while loosing in the long term.

lcof 3y ago

[dead]

GTP 3y ago

> Cult members say their protocol is built from the same digital DNA as the Tor browser and the chat app Signal Then just use those, as they are bettle-tested and received much more scrutiny than this new framework.

jasode 3y ago

>Cult members say their protocol is built from the same digital DNA as the Tor browser If it's built on technical ideas of TOR + IPFS, is it also susceptible to same legal liability exposure? A man from Austria was successfully found guilty of running a Tor exit node because he had child porn flow through it. Him not purposefully allowing child porn traffic did not let him off the hook. He got 5 years probation instead of a jail sentence but it still cost him over $6k in lawyer fees: https://www.google.com/search?q=tor+exit+node+child+porn https://www.google.com/search?q=tor+exit+node+child+porn

jeroenhd 3y ago
According to the first result on the query you've linked: > The court noted that experts had found and reconstructed image files from the "lost cluster" of a hard disk containing pornographic depictions of minors. However, it found the accused not guilty of knowingly accessing those images, since it could not be established with the certainty required in criminal proceedings that they had been downloaded by him rather than by the automatic action of a Web browser. I have to wonder how that image ended up on that hard drive. Your run of the mill Tor exit node certainly does not keep copies of the content it spreads on disk. The sentence wasn't about hosting an exit node, it was about offering hosting services to pedophiles. Tor itself wasn't under attack, at least not in that particular criminal case.

stilwelldotdev 3y ago

Wow, looked up to Cult of the Dead Cow in the early 90's as a fledgling little hacker punk and didn't know they were still around. That's cool. And also, this is very cool.

tete 3y ago

I first thought it sounded a bit like Retroshare[1], but now I am not sure. [1] https://retroshare.cc/ https://retroshare.cc/

sph 3y ago

Damn. That's a name that I haven't heard in two decades...

_8j50 3y ago

I am sure a certain potential future governor of texas approves. On a serious note though, ideology aside, the internet hardly needs another encryption protocol. The problem with these approaches is they try to solve everything. Unix and interner philosophy of layered piping (compartmentalization) exists for a reason. How do you establish trust? TOFU? Your app is broke from the start! How do people on the internet establish the other anonymous person is really their anonymous person? Censorship resistance? Hah! How do you dynamically find network access nodes or peers without getting blocked? HTTPS? Well they decrypt that and you shouldn't rely on non-E2EE stuff for such reasons? Does the network rely on domains? Does your app rely on domain names to be found and installed+working? They can block domains and block you in app stores. Domain front? Russia was blocking entire /8's of google and aws because of apps like Signal. This is why you solve problems one layer at a time. All of the problems are listed (and more) require a unique standardized protocol solution that interoperates with other layers. I said ideology aside earlier so let me bring it back and say this: it is a mistake to create any communication system that is censorship resistant but also lacks practical ways to moderate harmful content. This was something I was very passionate about then I decided I don't want to help build something that can be abused and things that censor are not going to be used by most people anyways so no point.