4 ms·

This may shock you, but plenty of cutting-edge application security analysis doesn't start with source code. There are many reasons, but one of them is that fo

by akerl_ 10mo ago

This may shock you, but plenty of cutting-edge application security analysis doesn't start with source code. There are many reasons, but one of them is that for the overwhelming majority of humans on the planet, their apps aren't being compiled from source on their device. So since you have to account for the fact that the app in the App Store may not be what's in some git repo, you may as well just start with the compiled/distributed app.

anonym29 10mo ago
Whether or not other people build from source code has zero relevance to a discussion about the trustworthiness of security promises coming from former PRISM data providers about the closed-source software they distribute. Source availability isn't theater, even when most people never read it, let alone build from it. The existence of surreptitious backdoors and dynamic analysis isn't a knock against source availability. Signal and WhatsApp do not belong in the same sentence together. One's open source software developed and distributed by a nonprofit foundation with a lengthy history of preserving and advancing accessible, trustworthy, verifiable encrypted calling and messaging going back to TextSecure and RedPhone, the other's a piece of proprietary software developed and distributed by a for-profit corporation whose entire business model is bulk harvesting of user data, with a lengthy history of misleading and manipulating their own users and distributing user data (including message contents) to shady data brokers and intelligence agencies. To imply these two offer even a semblance of equivalent privacy expectations is misguided, to put it generously.
- tptacek 10mo ago
  These are words, but I don't understand how they respond to the preceding comment, which observes that binary legibility is an operational requirement for real security given that almost nobody uses reproducible builds. In reality, people meaningfully depend on work done at the binary level to ensure lack of backdoors, not on work done at the source level. The preceding comment is saying that source security is insufficient, not that transparency is irrelevant.
  - anonym29 10mo ago
    Source availability is what makes a chain of trust possible that simply isn't meaningfully possible with closed source software, even with dynamic analysis, decompilation, reverse engineering, runtime network analysis with TLS decryption, etc. Both you and the preceding commenter are correct that just running binaries signed and distributed by Alphabet (Google) and/or Apple presents room for additional risks beyond those observable in the source code, but the solution to this problem isn't to say "and therefore source availability doesn't matter at all for anyone", it's to choose to build from source or to obtain and install APKs built and signed by the developers, such as via Accrescent or Obtanium (pulls directly from github, gitlab, etc releases). There's a known-good path. Most people do not take the known-good path. Their choice to do so does not invalidate or eliminate the desirable properties of known-good path (verifiability, trustworthiness). I genuinely do not understand the argument you and the other user are making. It reads to me like an argument that goes "Yes, there's a known, accurate, and publicly documented recipe to produce a cure for cancer, but it requires prerequisite knowledge to understand that most people lack, and it's burdensome to follow the recipe, so most people just buy their vials from the untrustworthy CancerCureCorporation, who has the ability to give customers a modified formula that keeps them sick rather than giving them the actual cure, and almost nobody makes the cure themselves without going through this untrustworthy but ultimately optional intermediary, so the public documentation of the cure doesn't matter at all, and there's no discernable difference between having the cure recipe and not having the cure recipe."
    - akerl_ 10mo ago
      > but the solution to this problem isn't to say "and therefore source availability doesn't matter at all for anyone" Thankfully, I didn’t say that.
      - anonym29 10mo ago
        Great, then it sounds like we agree: your original equivalence of Signal and WhatsApp was misguided, since one offers a verifiable chain of trust that starts with source availability and the other doesn't, to say nothing of the lengthy history of untrustworthiness and extensive, deliberate privacy violations of the company that owns and maintains WhatsApp, right?

by akerl_ 10mo ago

anonym29 10mo ago

Whether or not other people build from source code has zero relevance to a discussion about the trustworthiness of security promises coming from former PRISM data providers about the closed-source software they distribute. Source availability isn't theater, even when most people never read it, let alone build from it. The existence of surreptitious backdoors and dynamic analysis isn't a knock against source availability. Signal and WhatsApp do not belong in the same sentence together. One's open source software developed and distributed by a nonprofit foundation with a lengthy history of preserving and advancing accessible, trustworthy, verifiable encrypted calling and messaging going back to TextSecure and RedPhone, the other's a piece of proprietary software developed and distributed by a for-profit corporation whose entire business model is bulk harvesting of user data, with a lengthy history of misleading and manipulating their own users and distributing user data (including message contents) to shady data brokers and intelligence agencies. To imply these two offer even a semblance of equivalent privacy expectations is misguided, to put it generously.

tptacek 10mo ago
These are words, but I don't understand how they respond to the preceding comment, which observes that binary legibility is an operational requirement for real security given that almost nobody uses reproducible builds. In reality, people meaningfully depend on work done at the binary level to ensure lack of backdoors, not on work done at the source level. The preceding comment is saying that source security is insufficient, not that transparency is irrelevant.
- anonym29 10mo ago
  Source availability is what makes a chain of trust possible that simply isn't meaningfully possible with closed source software, even with dynamic analysis, decompilation, reverse engineering, runtime network analysis with TLS decryption, etc. Both you and the preceding commenter are correct that just running binaries signed and distributed by Alphabet (Google) and/or Apple presents room for additional risks beyond those observable in the source code, but the solution to this problem isn't to say "and therefore source availability doesn't matter at all for anyone", it's to choose to build from source or to obtain and install APKs built and signed by the developers, such as via Accrescent or Obtanium (pulls directly from github, gitlab, etc releases). There's a known-good path. Most people do not take the known-good path. Their choice to do so does not invalidate or eliminate the desirable properties of known-good path (verifiability, trustworthiness). I genuinely do not understand the argument you and the other user are making. It reads to me like an argument that goes "Yes, there's a known, accurate, and publicly documented recipe to produce a cure for cancer, but it requires prerequisite knowledge to understand that most people lack, and it's burdensome to follow the recipe, so most people just buy their vials from the untrustworthy CancerCureCorporation, who has the ability to give customers a modified formula that keeps them sick rather than giving them the actual cure, and almost nobody makes the cure themselves without going through this untrustworthy but ultimately optional intermediary, so the public documentation of the cure doesn't matter at all, and there's no discernable difference between having the cure recipe and not having the cure recipe."
  - akerl_ 10mo ago
    > but the solution to this problem isn't to say "and therefore source availability doesn't matter at all for anyone" Thankfully, I didn’t say that.
    - anonym29 10mo ago
      Great, then it sounds like we agree: your original equivalence of Signal and WhatsApp was misguided, since one offers a verifiable chain of trust that starts with source availability and the other doesn't, to say nothing of the lengthy history of untrustworthiness and extensive, deliberate privacy violations of the company that owns and maintains WhatsApp, right?