6 ms·

OpenPGP JavaScript implementation

74 points by Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago

rubbingalcohol 13y ago
This is incredible. This is something I've wanted for so long. Serious kudos to the developers. Also, check out their site at http://openpgpjs.org/ http://openpgpjs.org/
nodesocket 13y ago
Can somebody provide some practical use cases?
- officialjunk 13y ago
  encrypting messages and emails in browser?
- jakejake 13y ago
  Could be interesting for secure API calls..?
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  Simplified workflow - even across organisation boundaries An invoice is sent, and if the line manager and their line manager approve the invoice gets paid Build a portable version of Firefox onto a flash drive. Plug in drive, open up that Firefox In the local storage of ff-USB is my private key password protected Now bring up the web page, sign the json message irrevocably and post it back. One button click The risks of malicious cross site scripting is huge here. But that's the main use case afaik
- cs02rm0 13y ago
  Isn't this similar to Kim Dotcom's Mega filesharing service -encrypt data on the client so the service doesn't ever see what you're sending/storing?
- bigiain 13y ago
  Plausible deniability. I can get you to encrypt data with your public key before I upload it to my server. If the cops ever come to _me_ asking for your data, I can say "Sure! Here's the pgp encrypted blob. Sorry, I never get to see the unencrypted data." (Unfortunately, as per xkcd #538, they'll then just hit me with a $5 wrench until I send you a version of the OpenGPG javascript that bypasses the encryption step…)
- belorn 13y ago
  Let's see: Webmail for reading and decrypting emails. Creating "Real" private communication in social networks. Signing comments in news websites, and on-the-fly verification. Verify/provide identity across several non-connected social networks. On-the-fly verification of software packages in repositories like github. Potentially making Web-of-trust easier to use and expand. And that is for technologies already in existence as current web-browser plugins. Securing future API's as suggested in this comment thread sound also very interesting.
- runn1ng 13y ago
  A project I have been somehow involved in (altough not much for a lack of time) http://www.mailvelope.com/ http://www.mailvelope.com/ Encryption in GMail and maybe other webmails for chrome/chromium. It is surprisingly secure (see http://www.mailvelope.com/blog/security-audit-and-v0.6-release http://www.mailvelope.com/blog/security-audit-and-v0.6-relea... ) and super easy to use. It doesn't support signing and signature verification though.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Much easier to use e-mail encryption - if the e-mail providers decide to use it that is.
posixplz 13y ago
Won't really ever be useful for decryption unfortunately. Not until we solve the gpg+pcks11+browser smartcard debacle.
mrmekon 13y ago
If anybody uses this, please keep in mind the differences in security possibilities between native C code and Javascript. Both this and GnuPG encrypt and decrypt data with PGP keys. GnuPG, however, does this securely, in many, many senses of the word. For instance, GnuPG maps all of its buffers to protected memory pages, and clears its buffers frequently and early. A very large portion of GnuPG's code is dedicated to protecting your private keys, and the techniques that they use simply aren't available to javascript. This doesn't mean the JS library is bad, it's just a good thing to keep in mind. Don't run your nuclear launch codes through this.
- sensibletouches 13y ago
  > Don't run your nuclear launch codes through this. Just keep them in your coat pocket: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/328442.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/328442.stm
- aragot 13y ago
  Thank you for saying it. I find it dangerous to let users believe their data is secure, when the in-js encryption is everything but. It may lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and litigation issues...
- oconnore 13y ago
  https://github.com/eschulte/node-gpg https://github.com/eschulte/node-gpg (a Javascript PGP library that might be safe for nuclear launch codes)
  - mrmekon 13y ago
    This is not a PGP library. It's a wrapper around gpgme, which in turn is a wrapper around gnupg. node-gpg just exposes the GnuPG command line as javascript functions.
    - oconnore 13y ago
      And nodejs is not a javascript server, it's just a wrapper around V8 and the kernel's socket API? Linux is not an operating system kernel, it's just a wrapper around X86? That distinction is silly.
616c 13y ago
This is a problem I am interested in a lot, and is perhaps the only reason I cannot completely move away from dedicated email clients on my computer. I am not well-versed in the issue, but I have read the infamous Masanto cryptography in JS article, rebuttals, differents JS projects revolving around cryptography. I currently am evaluating Firefox's WebPG for some functionality, but the dev has to work hard to basically build a Firefox plugin (in JS, so we are back to the same problem) to call GnuPG calls and return the data. So, we have browser specific plugins and web-app code in a language that is controversially unsuitable for such use in decryption cases. What can we use as alternative to secure web applications? Does asm.js change anything? As far as I can tell, no. Alternative browser languages? I guess, but still a pain. Are we going to have to build this functionality into web browsers, as a standard or otherwise. I am generally curious what people who are trying to engage this problem see in the future.
Stubbs 13y ago
I really hope this takes off, there have been several efforts to bring PKS & PKE to the browser than have unfortunately just withered & died. WebPG (http://webpg.org/ http://webpg.org/) is the best implementation so far for GMail integration, and as far as I can tell it's the only one still being developed, but it falls over at the last hurdle, it won't send the email :) As a resident of the UK, with our governments boner for introducing a snoopers charter this kind of thing really interests me.
- DanBC 13y ago
  The snoopers charter is not interested in message content at all. It is only interested in dates and times and recipients and senders. Encrypting the content of your messages will do nothing to prevent people from getting the information available to them under the snoopers charter. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20677850 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20677850)
losvedir 13y ago
Sigh, the comments on this page are abysmal. Since no one has shouted the (correct) party line yet: DON'T USE CRYPTOGRAPHY IN THE BROWSER. This is an example of cargo cult thinking: well, cryptography is good, right? It protects me. I wish I had ENCRYPTED WEBMAIL, wow! But seriously, think for a second what the threat model is. Do you trust the webmail host to securely store your data and only give it up under warrants, etc? If so, then ordinary plain text communication over SSL is fine. Do you not trust the host? Then them saying "oh, look at us, we're encrypting your emails" shouldn't make you feel any better. I mean, if you use the site to view your damn emails, then THEY'RE SITTING THERE "DECRYPTED" ON THE PAGE, and the host that you don't trust can do a simple $.post(...) of its contents, for example. I seriously fail to see any example where this library is useful. Anyone have suggestions? In your suggestion be sure to note whether you trust the host or not, and if so why not just use SSL, and if not, why the host can't just bypass it with a line of jquery.
- tinco 13y ago
  There are circumstances where you can trust the host. For example if you run it yourself. I myself would like to run a self-hosted gmail clone if I can find a decent one. I could even use gmail as the pop3/smtp server, if the mails are encrypted anyway. Anyway if you control the host, and it communicates with you through SSL using a self-signed certificate, and you make sure you have no awkward browser extensions installed then your attack vectors are dwindling fast.
  - zokier 13y ago
    If you are trusting the host, why not let it do the encryption instead and make the whole system a whole lot more secure.
    - tinco 13y ago
      That is a true point :) But keep in mind that there is something to be said for not storing encrypted data on the same machine as the key. Ofcourse once the machine is compromised it can trick you into giving it the key, but there are also countless scenarios where that is not possible. It is really an improvement onto your security. Lets not pretend that read-protected memory is such a secure way of storing private keys.
Osmium 13y ago
There seems to be a certain irony here that the recent "doing cryptography in the browser with JavaScript is a bad idea" articles seems to have spurred people's interest in doing just that! It's almost like the Streisand effect. Oh well.
DanBC 13y ago
Please: have fun playing with your toy crypto systems. Enjoy making and breaking them. Use it for learning how to implement stuff, and where the difficulties are in implementing secure crypto. Perhaps even use them if your security needs are mild. But don't release them as products. Especially don't release them as RFC compliant secure products! A few people need effective security. Not having good crypto puts those people at risk of lifetime imprisonment, or death, or torture. Proper cryptography is hard. There are very many seemingly small things that can ruin the security of the cryptography. This is something that well funded governments have struggled with. The people involved with making and breaking crypto systems are smart, and experienced, and sometimes have considerable resources available to them.
pfortuny 13y ago
There is something I do not get. Everybody complaining about 'do not use this is the browser' but... Would it not be possible to develop a 'client' node.js application with this library? I mean, node.js is all the rave out there for severs but surely you can use it in (so to say) bundled client apps? Please: correct me, for I may be wrong (I have _no_ idea of node.js) but it does not sound like 'nuts' to me. Just another language, another runtime, another PGP library. Download once, run whenever you need it.
- deelowe 13y ago
  node.js doesn't run in the browser. It's typically a server side application. And, yes, I think most would agree that node.js might be one of the few valid use cases for this.
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    Thank you. So it makes some sense to me, developing this kind of library. Even if they have a marginal usability spectrum.
  - mrmekon 13y ago
    Except this library doesn't have proper memory protection, and node.js has system access so it could just use GnuPG and be a lot more secure (and almost certainly faster, too).
aioprisan 13y ago
are there any benchmarks for this piece's speed?

74 points by Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago

This is incredible. This is something I've wanted for so long. Serious kudos to the developers. Also, check out their site at http://openpgpjs.org/ http://openpgpjs.org/

nodesocket 13y ago

Can somebody provide some practical use cases?

officialjunk 13y ago
encrypting messages and emails in browser?
jakejake 13y ago
Could be interesting for secure API calls..?
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Simplified workflow - even across organisation boundaries An invoice is sent, and if the line manager and their line manager approve the invoice gets paid Build a portable version of Firefox onto a flash drive. Plug in drive, open up that Firefox In the local storage of ff-USB is my private key password protected Now bring up the web page, sign the json message irrevocably and post it back. One button click The risks of malicious cross site scripting is huge here. But that's the main use case afaik
cs02rm0 13y ago
Isn't this similar to Kim Dotcom's Mega filesharing service -encrypt data on the client so the service doesn't ever see what you're sending/storing?
bigiain 13y ago
Plausible deniability. I can get you to encrypt data with your public key before I upload it to my server. If the cops ever come to _me_ asking for your data, I can say "Sure! Here's the pgp encrypted blob. Sorry, I never get to see the unencrypted data." (Unfortunately, as per xkcd #538, they'll then just hit me with a $5 wrench until I send you a version of the OpenGPG javascript that bypasses the encryption step…)
belorn 13y ago
Let's see: Webmail for reading and decrypting emails. Creating "Real" private communication in social networks. Signing comments in news websites, and on-the-fly verification. Verify/provide identity across several non-connected social networks. On-the-fly verification of software packages in repositories like github. Potentially making Web-of-trust easier to use and expand. And that is for technologies already in existence as current web-browser plugins. Securing future API's as suggested in this comment thread sound also very interesting.
runn1ng 13y ago
A project I have been somehow involved in (altough not much for a lack of time) http://www.mailvelope.com/ http://www.mailvelope.com/ Encryption in GMail and maybe other webmails for chrome/chromium. It is surprisingly secure (see http://www.mailvelope.com/blog/security-audit-and-v0.6-release http://www.mailvelope.com/blog/security-audit-and-v0.6-relea... ) and super easy to use. It doesn't support signing and signature verification though.
mtgx 13y ago
Much easier to use e-mail encryption - if the e-mail providers decide to use it that is.

posixplz 13y ago

Won't really ever be useful for decryption unfortunately. Not until we solve the gpg+pcks11+browser smartcard debacle.

mrmekon 13y ago

If anybody uses this, please keep in mind the differences in security possibilities between native C code and Javascript. Both this and GnuPG encrypt and decrypt data with PGP keys. GnuPG, however, does this securely, in many, many senses of the word. For instance, GnuPG maps all of its buffers to protected memory pages, and clears its buffers frequently and early. A very large portion of GnuPG's code is dedicated to protecting your private keys, and the techniques that they use simply aren't available to javascript. This doesn't mean the JS library is bad, it's just a good thing to keep in mind. Don't run your nuclear launch codes through this.

sensibletouches 13y ago
> Don't run your nuclear launch codes through this. Just keep them in your coat pocket: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/328442.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/328442.stm
aragot 13y ago
Thank you for saying it. I find it dangerous to let users believe their data is secure, when the in-js encryption is everything but. It may lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and litigation issues...
oconnore 13y ago
https://github.com/eschulte/node-gpg https://github.com/eschulte/node-gpg (a Javascript PGP library that might be safe for nuclear launch codes)
- mrmekon 13y ago
  This is not a PGP library. It's a wrapper around gpgme, which in turn is a wrapper around gnupg. node-gpg just exposes the GnuPG command line as javascript functions.
  - oconnore 13y ago
    And nodejs is not a javascript server, it's just a wrapper around V8 and the kernel's socket API? Linux is not an operating system kernel, it's just a wrapper around X86? That distinction is silly.

616c 13y ago

This is a problem I am interested in a lot, and is perhaps the only reason I cannot completely move away from dedicated email clients on my computer. I am not well-versed in the issue, but I have read the infamous Masanto cryptography in JS article, rebuttals, differents JS projects revolving around cryptography. I currently am evaluating Firefox's WebPG for some functionality, but the dev has to work hard to basically build a Firefox plugin (in JS, so we are back to the same problem) to call GnuPG calls and return the data. So, we have browser specific plugins and web-app code in a language that is controversially unsuitable for such use in decryption cases. What can we use as alternative to secure web applications? Does asm.js change anything? As far as I can tell, no. Alternative browser languages? I guess, but still a pain. Are we going to have to build this functionality into web browsers, as a standard or otherwise. I am generally curious what people who are trying to engage this problem see in the future.

Stubbs 13y ago

I really hope this takes off, there have been several efforts to bring PKS & PKE to the browser than have unfortunately just withered & died. WebPG (http://webpg.org/ http://webpg.org/) is the best implementation so far for GMail integration, and as far as I can tell it's the only one still being developed, but it falls over at the last hurdle, it won't send the email :) As a resident of the UK, with our governments boner for introducing a snoopers charter this kind of thing really interests me.

DanBC 13y ago
The snoopers charter is not interested in message content at all. It is only interested in dates and times and recipients and senders. Encrypting the content of your messages will do nothing to prevent people from getting the information available to them under the snoopers charter. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20677850 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20677850)

losvedir 13y ago

Sigh, the comments on this page are abysmal. Since no one has shouted the (correct) party line yet: DON'T USE CRYPTOGRAPHY IN THE BROWSER. This is an example of cargo cult thinking: well, cryptography is good, right? It protects me. I wish I had ENCRYPTED WEBMAIL, wow! But seriously, think for a second what the threat model is. Do you trust the webmail host to securely store your data and only give it up under warrants, etc? If so, then ordinary plain text communication over SSL is fine. Do you not trust the host? Then them saying "oh, look at us, we're encrypting your emails" shouldn't make you feel any better. I mean, if you use the site to view your damn emails, then THEY'RE SITTING THERE "DECRYPTED" ON THE PAGE, and the host that you don't trust can do a simple $.post(...) of its contents, for example. I seriously fail to see any example where this library is useful. Anyone have suggestions? In your suggestion be sure to note whether you trust the host or not, and if so why not just use SSL, and if not, why the host can't just bypass it with a line of jquery.

tinco 13y ago
There are circumstances where you can trust the host. For example if you run it yourself. I myself would like to run a self-hosted gmail clone if I can find a decent one. I could even use gmail as the pop3/smtp server, if the mails are encrypted anyway. Anyway if you control the host, and it communicates with you through SSL using a self-signed certificate, and you make sure you have no awkward browser extensions installed then your attack vectors are dwindling fast.
- zokier 13y ago
  If you are trusting the host, why not let it do the encryption instead and make the whole system a whole lot more secure.
  - tinco 13y ago
    That is a true point :) But keep in mind that there is something to be said for not storing encrypted data on the same machine as the key. Ofcourse once the machine is compromised it can trick you into giving it the key, but there are also countless scenarios where that is not possible. It is really an improvement onto your security. Lets not pretend that read-protected memory is such a secure way of storing private keys.

Osmium 13y ago

There seems to be a certain irony here that the recent "doing cryptography in the browser with JavaScript is a bad idea" articles seems to have spurred people's interest in doing just that! It's almost like the Streisand effect. Oh well.

DanBC 13y ago

Please: have fun playing with your toy crypto systems. Enjoy making and breaking them. Use it for learning how to implement stuff, and where the difficulties are in implementing secure crypto. Perhaps even use them if your security needs are mild. But don't release them as products. Especially don't release them as RFC compliant secure products! A few people need effective security. Not having good crypto puts those people at risk of lifetime imprisonment, or death, or torture. Proper cryptography is hard. There are very many seemingly small things that can ruin the security of the cryptography. This is something that well funded governments have struggled with. The people involved with making and breaking crypto systems are smart, and experienced, and sometimes have considerable resources available to them.

pfortuny 13y ago

There is something I do not get. Everybody complaining about 'do not use this is the browser' but... Would it not be possible to develop a 'client' node.js application with this library? I mean, node.js is all the rave out there for severs but surely you can use it in (so to say) bundled client apps? Please: correct me, for I may be wrong (I have _no_ idea of node.js) but it does not sound like 'nuts' to me. Just another language, another runtime, another PGP library. Download once, run whenever you need it.

deelowe 13y ago
node.js doesn't run in the browser. It's typically a server side application. And, yes, I think most would agree that node.js might be one of the few valid use cases for this.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Thank you. So it makes some sense to me, developing this kind of library. Even if they have a marginal usability spectrum.
- mrmekon 13y ago
  Except this library doesn't have proper memory protection, and node.js has system access so it could just use GnuPG and be a lot more secure (and almost certainly faster, too).

aioprisan 13y ago

are there any benchmarks for this piece's speed?