27 ms·

That's a silly argument. There is a great deal of software out there in the world that operates in incredibly important roles. The software running your car, yo

by zainny 13y ago

That's a silly argument. There is a great deal of software out there in the world that operates in incredibly important roles. The software running your car, your electricity grid, your bank, your nearest nuclear power plant. Does everyone get free license to be an asshole? Crypto does not occupy some special branch of importance above and beyond a great deal of software many of us create in our jobs. I used to work on software in the defence industry on things that could put people at risk. I can't recall any of my colleagues behaving the way people in the crypto community do.

nknighthb 13y ago
Software in the industries you name is not marketable to the general public. It is written by employees or contractors of the relevant organization and extensively evaluated, tested, and certified (in some cases including by government regulators) before it is permitted to go into production. The public is not at risk from an amateur who whips up what they think is some great nuclear reactor control code and starts distributing it to everybody. An amateur marketing cryptographic software to the masses is different and akin to a snake oil salesman. He is dangerous, and no one has the legal authority to stop him.
- zainny 13y ago
  Do you really think these developers of this are actively trying to sell snake oil? You know what it looks more like to me? A couple of people are earnestly trying to build a secure communication product. They're not perfect, so they've made mistakes. And for every mistake they've made, there is a legion of toxic people from the crypto community who would rather demonstrate how much smarter they are by pointing out those mistakes in a condescending and unhelpful manner rather than simply being friendly, constructive, and helpful. Shit, think of the chilling effect this even has on anyone out there who wants to try to build some security/crypto stuff. Myself I wouldn't even dare try - the hysteria of some of the people in this community is just without equal. It's toxic. Pure toxic.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The developers do not know what they are doing. They are not qualified for the task they have taken on. In other words, they are not competent. They have been told this, both politely and less so. It is no longer about them, it is about helping the public by warning that Cryptocat is dangerous snake oil being actively peddled as secure by incompetent developers who are not to be trusted with people's lives. This will not be accomplished by merely providing the developers technical critiques. It will only be accomplished by informing the public in terms the public will understand. "Incompetent" is a suitable English word for that purpose. > Shit, think of the chilling effect this even has on anyone out there who wants to try to build some security/crypto stuff. Good! > Myself I wouldn't even dare try Very good!
    - zainny 13y ago
      I absolutely do hear what you are saying, and I understand your point. I think where we disagree is in our assessment of the developers. You think that they are incompetent and unqualified for the task. Whereas I think they are likely qualified for the task (I give them the benefit of the doubt) and the crypto community is overreacting in their criticisms of the issues, making minor mistakes seem much graver than they actually are. I've seen cryptosystems written by brilliant people and thought solid for many years later to be shown to be vulnerable. We still today continue to find issues in critical crypto libraries used around the world. Should we just throw them all out? Declare the authors incompetent? Anybody can make mistakes. And I don't think this making of mistakes invalidates anyones right to fix their mistake and keep pushing forward, as you evidently do.
      - jdiez17 13y ago
        The point is that writing software that uses cryptography is unlike writing software that, say, uses a Twitter API library. In the latter case you can detect errors quite easily because functionality will be compromised if you make a mistake. This is not so in programs that use cryptography; they tend to work without noticeable problems, but they may be shooting themselves in the foot. It's all about preventing known mistakes. For example, say a developer uses a One Time Pad encryption scheme in their application and calls it "secure". Surely if we've had any contact with cryptography we know that a OTP with a reused pad is broken and leaks key bytes, and vulnerable to many other types of attack. These mistakes can be avoided by having proper education in cryptography. I understand cryptocat's developers urge to write it in the same way they've written software the rest of their lives, through trial and error. And that is okay for most software, but not cryptography.

by zainny 13y ago

nknighthb 13y ago

Software in the industries you name is not marketable to the general public. It is written by employees or contractors of the relevant organization and extensively evaluated, tested, and certified (in some cases including by government regulators) before it is permitted to go into production. The public is not at risk from an amateur who whips up what they think is some great nuclear reactor control code and starts distributing it to everybody. An amateur marketing cryptographic software to the masses is different and akin to a snake oil salesman. He is dangerous, and no one has the legal authority to stop him.

zainny 13y ago
Do you really think these developers of this are actively trying to sell snake oil? You know what it looks more like to me? A couple of people are earnestly trying to build a secure communication product. They're not perfect, so they've made mistakes. And for every mistake they've made, there is a legion of toxic people from the crypto community who would rather demonstrate how much smarter they are by pointing out those mistakes in a condescending and unhelpful manner rather than simply being friendly, constructive, and helpful. Shit, think of the chilling effect this even has on anyone out there who wants to try to build some security/crypto stuff. Myself I wouldn't even dare try - the hysteria of some of the people in this community is just without equal. It's toxic. Pure toxic.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The developers do not know what they are doing. They are not qualified for the task they have taken on. In other words, they are not competent. They have been told this, both politely and less so. It is no longer about them, it is about helping the public by warning that Cryptocat is dangerous snake oil being actively peddled as secure by incompetent developers who are not to be trusted with people's lives. This will not be accomplished by merely providing the developers technical critiques. It will only be accomplished by informing the public in terms the public will understand. "Incompetent" is a suitable English word for that purpose. > Shit, think of the chilling effect this even has on anyone out there who wants to try to build some security/crypto stuff. Good! > Myself I wouldn't even dare try Very good!
  - zainny 13y ago
    I absolutely do hear what you are saying, and I understand your point. I think where we disagree is in our assessment of the developers. You think that they are incompetent and unqualified for the task. Whereas I think they are likely qualified for the task (I give them the benefit of the doubt) and the crypto community is overreacting in their criticisms of the issues, making minor mistakes seem much graver than they actually are. I've seen cryptosystems written by brilliant people and thought solid for many years later to be shown to be vulnerable. We still today continue to find issues in critical crypto libraries used around the world. Should we just throw them all out? Declare the authors incompetent? Anybody can make mistakes. And I don't think this making of mistakes invalidates anyones right to fix their mistake and keep pushing forward, as you evidently do.
    - jdiez17 13y ago
      The point is that writing software that uses cryptography is unlike writing software that, say, uses a Twitter API library. In the latter case you can detect errors quite easily because functionality will be compromised if you make a mistake. This is not so in programs that use cryptography; they tend to work without noticeable problems, but they may be shooting themselves in the foot. It's all about preventing known mistakes. For example, say a developer uses a One Time Pad encryption scheme in their application and calls it "secure". Surely if we've had any contact with cryptography we know that a OTP with a reused pad is broken and leaks key bytes, and vulnerable to many other types of attack. These mistakes can be avoided by having proper education in cryptography. I understand cryptocat's developers urge to write it in the same way they've written software the rest of their lives, through trial and error. And that is okay for most software, but not cryptography.