3 ms·

Why did Proton and SelfPrivacy use Random instead of Random.secure? DTD is local host or over SSH due to the unecrypted websocket. Browsers block unsecure WS

Why did Proton and SelfPrivacy use Random instead of Random.secure? DTD is local host or over SSH due to the unecrypted websocket. Browsers block unsecure WS over HTTPS. The key generated is for tagging multiple instances per IDE not security. Random is instant and is used for runtime collision prevention and performance especially UI, not uniqueness, PRNG is not truly random anyways. Random.secure has a large overhead accessing OS entropy and isn't always supported. [1] Go 'math/rand', python 'Random', C# 'Random' to name a few are also not unique or safe for crypto. Their secure equivalents: Go 'crypto/rand', Python 'SystemRandom', C# 'RNGCryptoServiceProvider'. This isn't a Dart or Flutter issue [0]: "A generator of random bool, int, or double values. The default implementation supplies a stream of pseudo-random bits that are not suitable for cryptographic purposes. Use the Random.secure constructor for cryptographic purposes." [0] https://api.dart.dev/dart-math/Random-class.html https://api.dart.dev/dart-math/Random-class.html [1] https://api.dart.dev/dart-math/Random/Random.secure.html https://api.dart.dev/dart-math/Random/Random.secure.html

swatcoder 2y ago
Yeah, it's a weird critique. The author acknowledges early on that `Random.secure` is there to provide randomness where it needs to be secure, but then spends the entire article fretting over how the other source of randomness isn't. But it's not supposed to be! Applications have plenty of reason for cheap, stable, or otherwise controlled forms of randomness and shouldn't have to pay the penalty for -- or face the reproducibility limitations of -- secure randonmness when that's not what they need. It's both useful and traditional for standard libraries to either include both forms, or to leave the secure form for other libraries to contribute. If an application uses the wrong supply of randomness for their needs, that's an application error. And if developers writing security-sensitive code don't know to think anticipate this distinction and avoid the error, then that sounds like there was a project management error in assigning them such a sensitive task.
- ivanbakel 2y ago
  Well the article still has a point in that the insecure PRNG is neutered for seemingly no reason, contrary to developer expectations. But I think we should, as language developers and users, be well beyond the point of pushing out and accepting insecure defaults with a little documentation disclaimer - especially if even the Dart developers themselves can't catch misuse of their own insecure APIs in widespread tools. At the end of the day, we don't live in a computing world where true randomness is that resource-intensive anymore, and user-facing applications should basically always be relying on it. Non-randomness should really be the opt-in, when developers can actually justify that the performance penalty is a problem. Otherwise, I don't need library authors prematurely optimising my programs at the cost of security. (There is a similar related discussion to have about the pervasiveness of floating points in programming languages when most applications would be better served by a more expensive, but more precise, numerical representation - since they rarely do that much calculation.)
- orf 2y ago
  It’s not random, that’s the point. If you neuter it so much that it’s only useful for a specific use case then make sure it’s named something relevant and specific related to that use case!
colmmacc 2y ago
When I wrote a Random class for use at Amazon, I made SecureRandom (which couldn't be seeded, and was a multi-source DRBG) the default, and you had to intentionally choose InsecureRandom. This is how it has to be, and in this case there should only be Random, and Random.insecure IMO.
SSNLF 2y ago
I'd say it's because Proton does not employ actual cryptographers or security engineers. They do seem to have a lot of marketing folk, interns, and particle physicists, allegedly.
neonsunset 2y ago
In .NET it's just 'RandomNumberGenerator' from System.Security.Cryptography. 'RNGCryptoServiceProvider' is obsolete.

swatcoder 2y ago

Yeah, it's a weird critique. The author acknowledges early on that `Random.secure` is there to provide randomness where it needs to be secure, but then spends the entire article fretting over how the other source of randomness isn't. But it's not supposed to be! Applications have plenty of reason for cheap, stable, or otherwise controlled forms of randomness and shouldn't have to pay the penalty for -- or face the reproducibility limitations of -- secure randonmness when that's not what they need. It's both useful and traditional for standard libraries to either include both forms, or to leave the secure form for other libraries to contribute. If an application uses the wrong supply of randomness for their needs, that's an application error. And if developers writing security-sensitive code don't know to think anticipate this distinction and avoid the error, then that sounds like there was a project management error in assigning them such a sensitive task.

ivanbakel 2y ago
Well the article still has a point in that the insecure PRNG is neutered for seemingly no reason, contrary to developer expectations. But I think we should, as language developers and users, be well beyond the point of pushing out and accepting insecure defaults with a little documentation disclaimer - especially if even the Dart developers themselves can't catch misuse of their own insecure APIs in widespread tools. At the end of the day, we don't live in a computing world where true randomness is that resource-intensive anymore, and user-facing applications should basically always be relying on it. Non-randomness should really be the opt-in, when developers can actually justify that the performance penalty is a problem. Otherwise, I don't need library authors prematurely optimising my programs at the cost of security. (There is a similar related discussion to have about the pervasiveness of floating points in programming languages when most applications would be better served by a more expensive, but more precise, numerical representation - since they rarely do that much calculation.)
orf 2y ago
It’s not random, that’s the point. If you neuter it so much that it’s only useful for a specific use case then make sure it’s named something relevant and specific related to that use case!

colmmacc 2y ago

When I wrote a Random class for use at Amazon, I made SecureRandom (which couldn't be seeded, and was a multi-source DRBG) the default, and you had to intentionally choose InsecureRandom. This is how it has to be, and in this case there should only be Random, and Random.insecure IMO.

SSNLF 2y ago

I'd say it's because Proton does not employ actual cryptographers or security engineers. They do seem to have a lot of marketing folk, interns, and particle physicists, allegedly.

neonsunset 2y ago

In .NET it's just 'RandomNumberGenerator' from System.Security.Cryptography. 'RNGCryptoServiceProvider' is obsolete.