5 ms·

By contrast, I've noticed the exact opposite phenomenon that the OP describes (mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of

By contrast, I've noticed the exact opposite phenomenon that the OP describes (mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of the woodwork to prosthelitize things like bitcoin, and terrible in-browser Javascript crypto). I suppose we all see what we want to see. I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list (even though it would frequently derail into arguments about assasination markets, and paranoid conspiracy theories).

unimpressive 15y ago
>terrible in-browser Javascript crypto I'm not a cryptographer by any means, but my first thought when reading that is can we make non-terrible in-browser javascript crypto?
- Aethaeryn 15y ago
  One of the top Google results for "javascript cryptography" thoroughly attacks the concept, but I'm not an expert in the area so I can't refute or confirm its claims: http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/
  - tkahn6 15y ago
    This is tptacek's company.
- pgeorgi 15y ago
  The main issue is the trust base. Allow the entire code base of a site to be pinned down to a cert (and that has to be done outside the website context, ie. in-browser), and you're halfway there. Say, a signed webapp manifest, listing all files that are supposed to be used in that context and their hashes. On first execution, the associated key is stored, maybe compared with third party knowledge about the site (not tampered with) and key (known not-trustworthy). After that, you know when someone else than the maintainer tampered with the code. With that you're down to trusting the maintainer. Which makes it as good as any other code distribution scheme.
- oconnore 15y ago
  It's not a problem with javascript so much as a problem with the issue of knowing what code is actually running in your browser.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  The short answer is "no, we can't" which every time someone proposes a new scheme seems to infuriate people (as though our inability to actually do it is a value judgement on whether or not it's a good idea).
  - Estragon 15y ago
    Actually, I think in some limited circumstances, JS crypto could be useful for a kind of "separation of trust." For instance, I am considering a service at the moment which would involve people uploading confidential information. The uploads will be fairly large, so a lot of bandwidth will be required (optimistically assuming it gets traction.) One architecture I am considering is a small dedicated HTTPS server which provides a self-contained webpage-plus-JS program to encrypt the upload and send it for storage on Amazon S3. Then I will pull the results off Amazon and decrypt them on a machine which is not even connected to the network. The advantage to this architecture is that it will scale arbitrarily but require me to secure only relatively modest dedicated resources, despite being used for transmission of confidential information. Because it uses a dedicated HTTPS server serving a self-contained page doing all the crypto, it avoids tptacek's objections to JS crypto in the browser (E.g., the server can provide the random seed in the JS itself, HTTPS prevents MITM attacks, etc.) (Copied from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007)
    - m0nastic 15y ago
      So, you're scheme would require the long answer... ;) Which is that it sounds rather complicated (which makes my security-sense go off, but certainly isn't a fatal indictment) and that I'd really need to either do an active evaluation of the system or get several reassurrances that someone else decent (ideally someone much smarter than me) did and it checked out before I'd be remotely comfortable using it or recommending it.
      - Estragon 15y ago
        That's fair enough. I was just pointing out that not every architecture involving in-browser JS crypto suffers from the problems tptacek detailed.
mindcrime 15y ago
mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of the woodwork to prosthelitize things like bitcoin, OK, fair point about bitcoin. But other than that, I really feel like the cypherpunk types have been fairly invisible lately. Maybe it's just that there was a certain period of time, back in the /. heyday, when discussions of cryptography, surveillance, data-havens, etc. were at a peak, and now they've leveled off. But in any case, I would argue that we (still) need an active and efficient cypherpunk community to promote technological freedom.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  I think what's changed is that the discussions during the heyday were around the technology, which at the time was the limiting factor. The technology isn't really the issue anymore (with some specific exceptions). The problem with crypto-currency isn't the "crypto", it's the "currency". I think that same phenomena is the culprit for most "cyperpunk-related" discussions. 10 years ago I'd have said that I was really hoping for the "Star Trek" future, but that if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on a "BladeRunner" future being way more likely. Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country). But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a healthy "cypherpunk" community. I think you can look at a lot of things that came out of the original community and see value there.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country). I'm afraid you may be right. But I still hold out some hope that we can do better than that.
  - personlurking 15y ago
    Here's a link to a list, by year, of how the future is portrayed in films. I'm not sure if it's listed in the infographic, but the film 'Code 46' (Tim Robbins) tells an intriguing story of where I see things heading. http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg Another image I can't locate showed how we used to see the future, from a 1980's standpoint (think: Jetsons), and how we see it today (think: "The Road", "Book of Eli" or "I am Legend").
ephermata 15y ago
Start a mailing list, start recruiting people to post...who knows, maybe you'll set up the new place?
- mindcrime 15y ago
  Count me in. My initial focus is going to be on the RTP area, and trying to get a meatspace meetup going, that caters to folks of this mindset. But if a new hub for cypherpunk (and related) thought emerged online, I'd definitely join in.
DanBC 15y ago
> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list You may find some interested people in UK Crypto (but obviously I'm not suggestion you spam their list). (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto) > This group is comprised of people with a professional interest in the formulation and content of UK government policy on the provision, use and control of encryption products and services in the UK. It was formed in response to the 1996 announcement of UK policy on the provision of encryption services on telecommunications networks. > The mailing list is unmoderated, but only subscribed members can post. Please try and restrict postings to UK Encryption law and try not to stray onto general cryptology topics.
apembroke 15y ago
> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list check out the bitcoin forums. Honestly, I think the op has been hiding under a rock for the past couple years. Bitcoin and tor are great examples, but there are plenty of other disruptive projects out there, like loom, open-transactions, ripple. Crypto-anarchists didn't go away, they got to work creating practical applications that can change people's lives, and not just for the geeks.
dredmorbius 15y ago
What's your gripe on in-browser JS crypto? Is it worse than nothing, or just bad? What alternatives would you suggest?
- m0nastic 15y ago
  My gripe is the same as the overwhelming majority of people in my industry: that given unlimited resources, in your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine a less hospitable place for cryptographic integrity than the DOM. Some people are of the opinion that the usefulness of being able to do crypto in people's browsers outweighs exactly how inhospitable it is. I don't share this opinion. In most circumstances, something bad might be preferable to nothing at all. I think crypto is one of the rare exceptions where "bad" is actually worse than none. My alternative suggestions are conservative: PGP and TLS These suggestions aren't particularly exciting, however, so people keep looking for other, newer, ones. I'm actually in the small minority of security people who don't think it's feasible to discourage people from trying to muck around with crypto. It's like sitting a kid in front of a television,handing them a video game controller, and then telling them not to play video games. Crypto is an attractive nuisance. It also seems like it answers a lot of our problems (it actually answers far less than we think, and just creates new ones in their place), so people naturally are inclined to experiment with it. So I hope someday to be wrong about crypto in the browser, because it'd be great. But right now, it's sort of like trying to fancy up a glory hole.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    I'll admit that browser-based scripting isn't high on my list of secure environments either. It does, however, do a nice job of getting around the fundamental problem of finding some environment that's reliably and consistently available. It also nicely end-runs the problem of trusting a remote site to hold your data in confidence. There's the remaining problem of key management, though for many people, browser-based password managers are a reasonable mechanism. PGP/GPG and TLS still provide key management issues (with several notable registrar incidents in the past year). And even if you're, say, parking a public key on a site to autoencrypt material sent there (assuming it's not encrypted prior to upload), there's the question of how you're going to interact with encrypted data on that site. I see three basic options: server-side encrypt/decrypt, browser-based, or client-side non-browser utilities. In the latter case, you now have a wide range of environments (Windows variants, Mac, Linux, etc.) to support. Not saying it can't happen, but good crypto is hard. Even the pros (PGP) ended up using a server-based solution which had both public and private keys on it as their solution to the key-management problem.

unimpressive 15y ago

>terrible in-browser Javascript crypto I'm not a cryptographer by any means, but my first thought when reading that is can we make non-terrible in-browser javascript crypto?

Aethaeryn 15y ago
One of the top Google results for "javascript cryptography" thoroughly attacks the concept, but I'm not an expert in the area so I can't refute or confirm its claims: http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/ http://www.matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/
- tkahn6 15y ago
  This is tptacek's company.
pgeorgi 15y ago
The main issue is the trust base. Allow the entire code base of a site to be pinned down to a cert (and that has to be done outside the website context, ie. in-browser), and you're halfway there. Say, a signed webapp manifest, listing all files that are supposed to be used in that context and their hashes. On first execution, the associated key is stored, maybe compared with third party knowledge about the site (not tampered with) and key (known not-trustworthy). After that, you know when someone else than the maintainer tampered with the code. With that you're down to trusting the maintainer. Which makes it as good as any other code distribution scheme.
oconnore 15y ago
It's not a problem with javascript so much as a problem with the issue of knowing what code is actually running in your browser.
m0nastic 15y ago
The short answer is "no, we can't" which every time someone proposes a new scheme seems to infuriate people (as though our inability to actually do it is a value judgement on whether or not it's a good idea).
- Estragon 15y ago
  Actually, I think in some limited circumstances, JS crypto could be useful for a kind of "separation of trust." For instance, I am considering a service at the moment which would involve people uploading confidential information. The uploads will be fairly large, so a lot of bandwidth will be required (optimistically assuming it gets traction.) One architecture I am considering is a small dedicated HTTPS server which provides a self-contained webpage-plus-JS program to encrypt the upload and send it for storage on Amazon S3. Then I will pull the results off Amazon and decrypt them on a machine which is not even connected to the network. The advantage to this architecture is that it will scale arbitrarily but require me to secure only relatively modest dedicated resources, despite being used for transmission of confidential information. Because it uses a dedicated HTTPS server serving a self-contained page doing all the crypto, it avoids tptacek's objections to JS crypto in the browser (E.g., the server can provide the random seed in the JS itself, HTTPS prevents MITM attacks, etc.) (Copied from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3872007)
  - m0nastic 15y ago
    So, you're scheme would require the long answer... ;) Which is that it sounds rather complicated (which makes my security-sense go off, but certainly isn't a fatal indictment) and that I'd really need to either do an active evaluation of the system or get several reassurrances that someone else decent (ideally someone much smarter than me) did and it checked out before I'd be remotely comfortable using it or recommending it.
    - Estragon 15y ago
      That's fair enough. I was just pointing out that not every architecture involving in-browser JS crypto suffers from the problems tptacek detailed.

mindcrime 15y ago

mainly, that over the past year or so, neo-cypherpunks have started coming out of the woodwork to prosthelitize things like bitcoin, OK, fair point about bitcoin. But other than that, I really feel like the cypherpunk types have been fairly invisible lately. Maybe it's just that there was a certain period of time, back in the /. heyday, when discussions of cryptography, surveillance, data-havens, etc. were at a peak, and now they've leveled off. But in any case, I would argue that we (still) need an active and efficient cypherpunk community to promote technological freedom.

m0nastic 15y ago
I think what's changed is that the discussions during the heyday were around the technology, which at the time was the limiting factor. The technology isn't really the issue anymore (with some specific exceptions). The problem with crypto-currency isn't the "crypto", it's the "currency". I think that same phenomena is the culprit for most "cyperpunk-related" discussions. 10 years ago I'd have said that I was really hoping for the "Star Trek" future, but that if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on a "BladeRunner" future being way more likely. Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country). But I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing the value of a healthy "cypherpunk" community. I think you can look at a lot of things that came out of the original community and see value there.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  Now I'm old, and I think if I was forced to bet, "Brazil" is a more likely model (the movie, not the country). I'm afraid you may be right. But I still hold out some hope that we can do better than that.
- personlurking 15y ago
  Here's a link to a list, by year, of how the future is portrayed in films. I'm not sure if it's listed in the infographic, but the film 'Code 46' (Tim Robbins) tells an intriguing story of where I see things heading. http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3199/inforn.jpg Another image I can't locate showed how we used to see the future, from a 1980's standpoint (think: Jetsons), and how we see it today (think: "The Road", "Book of Eli" or "I am Legend").

ephermata 15y ago

Start a mailing list, start recruiting people to post...who knows, maybe you'll set up the new place?

mindcrime 15y ago
Count me in. My initial focus is going to be on the RTP area, and trying to get a meatspace meetup going, that caters to folks of this mindset. But if a new hub for cypherpunk (and related) thought emerged online, I'd definitely join in.

DanBC 15y ago

> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list You may find some interested people in UK Crypto (but obviously I'm not suggestion you spam their list). (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto) > This group is comprised of people with a professional interest in the formulation and content of UK government policy on the provision, use and control of encryption products and services in the UK. It was formed in response to the 1996 announcement of UK policy on the provision of encryption services on telecommunications networks. > The mailing list is unmoderated, but only subscribed members can post. Please try and restrict postings to UK Encryption law and try not to stray onto general cryptology topics.

apembroke 15y ago

> I do wish that there existed a forum for some of the discussions that used to actually happen on the cypherpunks list check out the bitcoin forums. Honestly, I think the op has been hiding under a rock for the past couple years. Bitcoin and tor are great examples, but there are plenty of other disruptive projects out there, like loom, open-transactions, ripple. Crypto-anarchists didn't go away, they got to work creating practical applications that can change people's lives, and not just for the geeks.

dredmorbius 15y ago

What's your gripe on in-browser JS crypto? Is it worse than nothing, or just bad? What alternatives would you suggest?

m0nastic 15y ago
My gripe is the same as the overwhelming majority of people in my industry: that given unlimited resources, in your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine a less hospitable place for cryptographic integrity than the DOM. Some people are of the opinion that the usefulness of being able to do crypto in people's browsers outweighs exactly how inhospitable it is. I don't share this opinion. In most circumstances, something bad might be preferable to nothing at all. I think crypto is one of the rare exceptions where "bad" is actually worse than none. My alternative suggestions are conservative: PGP and TLS These suggestions aren't particularly exciting, however, so people keep looking for other, newer, ones. I'm actually in the small minority of security people who don't think it's feasible to discourage people from trying to muck around with crypto. It's like sitting a kid in front of a television,handing them a video game controller, and then telling them not to play video games. Crypto is an attractive nuisance. It also seems like it answers a lot of our problems (it actually answers far less than we think, and just creates new ones in their place), so people naturally are inclined to experiment with it. So I hope someday to be wrong about crypto in the browser, because it'd be great. But right now, it's sort of like trying to fancy up a glory hole.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  I'll admit that browser-based scripting isn't high on my list of secure environments either. It does, however, do a nice job of getting around the fundamental problem of finding some environment that's reliably and consistently available. It also nicely end-runs the problem of trusting a remote site to hold your data in confidence. There's the remaining problem of key management, though for many people, browser-based password managers are a reasonable mechanism. PGP/GPG and TLS still provide key management issues (with several notable registrar incidents in the past year). And even if you're, say, parking a public key on a site to autoencrypt material sent there (assuming it's not encrypted prior to upload), there's the question of how you're going to interact with encrypted data on that site. I see three basic options: server-side encrypt/decrypt, browser-based, or client-side non-browser utilities. In the latter case, you now have a wide range of environments (Windows variants, Mac, Linux, etc.) to support. Not saying it can't happen, but good crypto is hard. Even the pros (PGP) ended up using a server-based solution which had both public and private keys on it as their solution to the key-management problem.