4 ms·

How could this app possibly be E2EE? They would need to decrypt the message in order to forward it to Apple.

duskwuff 3y ago
> How could this app possibly be E2EE? The promise was, implicitly, that Nothing (terrible name) had reimplemented enough of the iMessage encryption architecture to replicate it on an Android phone. If that had been the case, there's no reason they couldn't have made it end-to-end encryption, just like Apple's implementation of iMessage is. The reality is that they lied. It's not clear that there was any encryption involved beyond standard TLS and (possibly?) at-rest encryption in Firebase. None of this adds up to E2EE.
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  Apple has taken steps over the past several years to tie the cryptography in iMessage (and APNs generally) to Apple manufactured devices. It’s telling that every legitimate way of bridging onto iMessage to date has required an Apple device. Tangentially related: My thinking is Apple’s reverse course on RCS will help them justify keeping iMessage itself closer to Apple platforms, particularly when governments/society demand that they justify their closed access.
  - dangus 3y ago
    You’re spot-on with RCS. Apple can point to it and say “we support open standards including everything Android supports.”
  - gruez 3y ago
    >It’s telling that every legitimate way of bridging onto iMessage to date has required an Apple device. AFAIK you could get imessage to work on a hackintosh, which technically isn't an apple device.
    - iAMkenough 3y ago
      I'm guessing they don't view hackintoshes as legitimate. I'm curious about legitimate businesses that are built around hackintoshes.
      - sweetjuly 3y ago
        The point is that Apple couldn't possibly be requiring some hardware backed signature (i.e. HW attestation that this is a genuine Apple product) for iMessage if Hackintoshes can pull it off. In so far as Hackintoshes can send iMessages without any sketchy middle-end servers, so too could Android devices if someone were able to reverse engineer enough of the stack.
        fomine3 3y ago
        Isn't it like a emulated TPM? It may or may not secure, but it works as a TPM.
        gruez 3y ago
        Apple does not use TPMs. They use their own proprietary security chips, which approximates TPMs. I'm not sure how their implementation works, but even for TPMs "emulated TPM" won't work because real TPMs have endorsement keys[1] with accompanying certificates signed by the manufacturer. If apple really wanted to, they could check against such key, which would theoretically block non-genuine devices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Endorsement_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Endorsement_...
        iAMkenough 3y ago
        For Hackintosh purposes, the security chip doesn't come into play, at least not yet. There are still Macs supported by the latest macOS that don't require a T1 or T2 security chip.
        duskwuff 3y ago
- bozhark 3y ago
  They just passed messages through Macs.

> How could this app possibly be E2EE? The promise was, implicitly, that Nothing (terrible name) had reimplemented enough of the iMessage encryption architecture to replicate it on an Android phone. If that had been the case, there's no reason they couldn't have made it end-to-end encryption, just like Apple's implementation of iMessage is. The reality is that they lied. It's not clear that there was any encryption involved beyond standard TLS and (possibly?) at-rest encryption in Firebase. None of this adds up to E2EE.

TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
Apple has taken steps over the past several years to tie the cryptography in iMessage (and APNs generally) to Apple manufactured devices. It’s telling that every legitimate way of bridging onto iMessage to date has required an Apple device. Tangentially related: My thinking is Apple’s reverse course on RCS will help them justify keeping iMessage itself closer to Apple platforms, particularly when governments/society demand that they justify their closed access.
- dangus 3y ago
  You’re spot-on with RCS. Apple can point to it and say “we support open standards including everything Android supports.”
- gruez 3y ago
  >It’s telling that every legitimate way of bridging onto iMessage to date has required an Apple device. AFAIK you could get imessage to work on a hackintosh, which technically isn't an apple device.
  - iAMkenough 3y ago
    I'm guessing they don't view hackintoshes as legitimate. I'm curious about legitimate businesses that are built around hackintoshes.
    - sweetjuly 3y ago
      The point is that Apple couldn't possibly be requiring some hardware backed signature (i.e. HW attestation that this is a genuine Apple product) for iMessage if Hackintoshes can pull it off. In so far as Hackintoshes can send iMessages without any sketchy middle-end servers, so too could Android devices if someone were able to reverse engineer enough of the stack.
      - fomine3 3y ago
        Isn't it like a emulated TPM? It may or may not secure, but it works as a TPM.
        gruez 3y ago
        Apple does not use TPMs. They use their own proprietary security chips, which approximates TPMs. I'm not sure how their implementation works, but even for TPMs "emulated TPM" won't work because real TPMs have endorsement keys[1] with accompanying certificates signed by the manufacturer. If apple really wanted to, they could check against such key, which would theoretically block non-genuine devices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Endorsement_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing#Endorsement_...
        iAMkenough 3y ago
        For Hackintosh purposes, the security chip doesn't come into play, at least not yet. There are still Macs supported by the latest macOS that don't require a T1 or T2 security chip.
        duskwuff 3y ago
bozhark 3y ago
They just passed messages through Macs.