3 ms·

This is the first sentence of the article: > In 2016, Facebook launched a secret project designed to intercept and decrypt the network traffic between people u

This is the first sentence of the article: > In 2016, Facebook launched a secret project designed to intercept and decrypt the network traffic between people using Snapchat’s app and its servers. I read the rest of the article as well, and saw only confirmation: > Given that Snapchat encrypted the traffic between the app and its servers, this network analysis technique was not going to be effective. This is why Facebook engineers proposed using Onavo, which when activated had the advantage of reading all of the device’s network traffic before it got encrypted and sent over the internet. Where do you see the ambiguity? Other than the weasel words about proposing these programs (versus actually running them), it seems clear that they were decrypting the traffic (or reading it before it was encrypted). Did I miss a piece?

stbenjam 3y ago
> This is why Facebook engineers proposed using Onavo, which when activated had the advantage of reading all of the device’s network traffic before it got encrypted and sent over the internet. This doesn't make sense, they wouldn't see the traffic before it was encrypted. They would see it encrypted, but using the MITM certificate instead of Snapchat's. Given the inaccuracies in the article, it makes me wonder what else they got wrong. Using a VPN client to monitor how much, when, and where traffic is going is bad, but MITM'ing a user's connection is much, much worse. I'm really skeptical that's what happened, especially given TC's inability to articulate accurately what Facebook did.
- blakesterz 3y ago
  That was pretty much the point of Onavo: https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/
  - stbenjam 3y ago
    > Onavo [...] would collect the “Time you spend using apps, mobile and Wi-Fi data you use per app, the websites you visit, and your country, device and network type.” That's the former type of collection I was talking about. There's no evidence I can find that they installed a root CA certificate and were MITM'ing connections. That's a major accusation and one that is not accurate as far as I can tell. Apple banned the app because it was inspecting underlying traffic not installing a fake root certificate: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
      You are quoting what Facebook claimed the app did. The language in the lawsuit complaint is explicit that FB installed a root cert to MITM and decrypt traffic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39835115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39835115
      - stbenjam 3y ago
        Thanks, that's crystal clear that they were indeed doing this. Wow.

stbenjam 3y ago

> This is why Facebook engineers proposed using Onavo, which when activated had the advantage of reading all of the device’s network traffic before it got encrypted and sent over the internet. This doesn't make sense, they wouldn't see the traffic before it was encrypted. They would see it encrypted, but using the MITM certificate instead of Snapchat's. Given the inaccuracies in the article, it makes me wonder what else they got wrong. Using a VPN client to monitor how much, when, and where traffic is going is bad, but MITM'ing a user's connection is much, much worse. I'm really skeptical that's what happened, especially given TC's inability to articulate accurately what Facebook did.

blakesterz 3y ago
That was pretty much the point of Onavo: https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/
- stbenjam 3y ago
  > Onavo [...] would collect the “Time you spend using apps, mobile and Wi-Fi data you use per app, the websites you visit, and your country, device and network type.” That's the former type of collection I was talking about. There's no evidence I can find that they installed a root CA certificate and were MITM'ing connections. That's a major accusation and one that is not accurate as far as I can tell. Apple banned the app because it was inspecting underlying traffic not installing a fake root certificate: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    You are quoting what Facebook claimed the app did. The language in the lawsuit complaint is explicit that FB installed a root cert to MITM and decrypt traffic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39835115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39835115
    - stbenjam 3y ago
      Thanks, that's crystal clear that they were indeed doing this. Wow.