3 ms·

It's not a good idea, but I don't see how security is a big part of the problem. In particular crying foul about the data being stored in the clear seems silly.

It's not a good idea, but I don't see how security is a big part of the problem. In particular crying foul about the data being stored in the clear seems silly. How would encrypting it help, when the key has to be right there anyway? Is it that much worse than all the other sensitive data also sitting in the clear in, you know, regular files? What's the plan, encrypt the data a public key where the private key is locked most of the time? Require a passphrase any time you want to read or process it? Does anyone think that UX will fly? Maybe there's some TPM magic that makes it work without also making it trivial to steal for an attacker who already has arbitrary code execution, but no one is citing that so far. I don't see the better design that everyone seems to think is obviously there. (Besides the obvious Just Don't, which is fair as far as it goes but has nothing to do with crypto)

hiisukun 2y ago
Just for example: It could be stored encrypted with the user's credentials. So when you want to browse "Recall" it might pop-up requesting a fingerprint, password, token etc. Then it decrypts, presents to the user, and closes the handles when you're done. In this way, the "key" isn't present -- the user has it! That's quite a different security situation to it just sitting around in plaintext on disk. Certainly there's a number of Windows and MacOS features sitting behind authentication already, from a UX perspective.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  I don't think users would go for that UX, so if you're committed to building this feature, I don't think you can go that route without basically accepting that no one will use it. I suspect MS wants this to be a lot more casual than the other features behind authentication now. (Like I told akkartik, I'm open to the argument that there's no way to implement it securely and with an acceptably easy UX, but I don't see people actually making that argument.) Maybe they'll prove me wrong by doing something like that, though.
akkartik 2y ago
The way I read these arguments is: the lack of security adds to the case against this product. The reviewers aren't saying there's a self-evident solution, just that there are self-evident problems. How did this get through review? So it's not that there are two separate arguments, but that the security issues strengthen the main argument that this is a product that shouldn't exist.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  That's a very charitable reading. In my reading, the dismissive tone of the "security" arguments implies there's something obvious that MS should have done better specifically security-wise. If there's no such better implementation, then security has nothing to do with the argument, and they should stop talking about it. If they wanted to make a more nuanced argument about how there's no way to make a secure implementation that provides the smooth UX people will actually use, I would respect that a bit more, but I'm not seeing either that particular claim or the evidence to back it up in the mainstream commentary.
  - akkartik 2y ago
    I don't know what else you've read, but in the context of OP in particular it's not clear to me what seems dismissive about the "security" arguments.
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      It's stronger in the initial coverage, I believe by the guy who discovered the story and the immediate commentary on Mastodon. The Verge is a more professional outfit so they're more subtle about it, but it's still there in phrases like "That could make it trivial for an attacker" (emphasis mine) and "There are clearly some obvious holes". Tone is hard to prove, so I'm probably not going to try any harder than that.
      - akkartik 2y ago
        I can totally believe random microblogging takes are stupid, but that doesn't seem worth arguing about. Microblogging is just capturing initial reactions. > "That could make it trivial for an attacker" (emphasis mine) It _is_ trivial, right? The attack _is_ trivial. It's the solution that isn't. OP isn't claiming that. Seems reasonable to me. I went back and reread https://doublepulsar.com/recall-stealing-everything-youve-ever-typed-or-viewed-on-your-own-windows-pc-is-now-possible-da3e12e9465e https://doublepulsar.com/recall-stealing-everything-youve-ev... which is the first link in OP. Again, it doesn't have much to say about encryption at all except to point out that hey, the protections Microsoft is claiming are underwhelming. Without those protections the cost/benefit balance is way out of whack.

hiisukun 2y ago

Just for example: It could be stored encrypted with the user's credentials. So when you want to browse "Recall" it might pop-up requesting a fingerprint, password, token etc. Then it decrypts, presents to the user, and closes the handles when you're done. In this way, the "key" isn't present -- the user has it! That's quite a different security situation to it just sitting around in plaintext on disk. Certainly there's a number of Windows and MacOS features sitting behind authentication already, from a UX perspective.

andrewflnr 2y ago
I don't think users would go for that UX, so if you're committed to building this feature, I don't think you can go that route without basically accepting that no one will use it. I suspect MS wants this to be a lot more casual than the other features behind authentication now. (Like I told akkartik, I'm open to the argument that there's no way to implement it securely and with an acceptably easy UX, but I don't see people actually making that argument.) Maybe they'll prove me wrong by doing something like that, though.

akkartik 2y ago

The way I read these arguments is: the lack of security adds to the case against this product. The reviewers aren't saying there's a self-evident solution, just that there are self-evident problems. How did this get through review? So it's not that there are two separate arguments, but that the security issues strengthen the main argument that this is a product that shouldn't exist.

andrewflnr 2y ago
That's a very charitable reading. In my reading, the dismissive tone of the "security" arguments implies there's something obvious that MS should have done better specifically security-wise. If there's no such better implementation, then security has nothing to do with the argument, and they should stop talking about it. If they wanted to make a more nuanced argument about how there's no way to make a secure implementation that provides the smooth UX people will actually use, I would respect that a bit more, but I'm not seeing either that particular claim or the evidence to back it up in the mainstream commentary.
- akkartik 2y ago
  I don't know what else you've read, but in the context of OP in particular it's not clear to me what seems dismissive about the "security" arguments.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    It's stronger in the initial coverage, I believe by the guy who discovered the story and the immediate commentary on Mastodon. The Verge is a more professional outfit so they're more subtle about it, but it's still there in phrases like "That could make it trivial for an attacker" (emphasis mine) and "There are clearly some obvious holes". Tone is hard to prove, so I'm probably not going to try any harder than that.
    - akkartik 2y ago
      I can totally believe random microblogging takes are stupid, but that doesn't seem worth arguing about. Microblogging is just capturing initial reactions. > "That could make it trivial for an attacker" (emphasis mine) It _is_ trivial, right? The attack _is_ trivial. It's the solution that isn't. OP isn't claiming that. Seems reasonable to me. I went back and reread https://doublepulsar.com/recall-stealing-everything-youve-ever-typed-or-viewed-on-your-own-windows-pc-is-now-possible-da3e12e9465e https://doublepulsar.com/recall-stealing-everything-youve-ev... which is the first link in OP. Again, it doesn't have much to say about encryption at all except to point out that hey, the protections Microsoft is claiming are underwhelming. Without those protections the cost/benefit balance is way out of whack.