5 ms·

Like I said, the developers seem to be earnestly trying to improve their product based on the feedback they are getting. What more can you ask of them? "You t

by zainny 13y ago

Like I said, the developers seem to be earnestly trying to improve their product based on the feedback they are getting. What more can you ask of them? "You there. Stop. You shouldn't be building this because we the superior internet community think you're a terrible person who will never learn anything, so we're putting our foot down." Screw that. What right do you have to tell these individuals to stop building something they might be actually enjoying building (and learning about crypto)? You have absolutely no right to complain in much the same way I don't have any right to look at your Github repo, tell you you're a terrible developer and you should never touch a computer again.

mst 13y ago
Actually, I'd entirely support your right to do that. And his to tell you to fuck off and ignore you from then on if you did.
rschmitty 13y ago
I think all you should ask of them is honesty, if their track record has truly been this bad. "Here is our secure product for all" vs "Help us make our product secure for all" If someone is learning crypto for fun and enjoyment they should seek advice of experts no matter how much of a jerk the expert may be. This isnt really the same level of a random github project 'convert your old php into haskell with 1 click!' I don't think anyone has expectations of that being 100% accurate. People on HN flipped out over Linode, they made a mistake, they fessed up. People just want honesty. Also, everyone has any right to complain, at least until prism comes a knockin
DanBC 13y ago
> Like I said, the developers seem to be earnestly trying to improve their product based on the feedback they are getting. Cryptographic software isn't something that you can improve by a process of gradual refinement. Crypto can have small, subtle, bugs. Those bugs could mean that the product is worthless. A skilled, knowledgeable researcher could audit the code closely, and report any bugs they find. Cryptocat could fix all of those bugs. Does that mean it's secure? No - because crypto is hard. > What more can you ask of them? I ask that they make the disclaimers much bolder and bigger. I ask that they emphasise the experimental, untested, unscrutinised nature of Cryptocat. > "You there. Stop. You shouldn't be building this because we the superior internet community think you're a terrible person who will never learn anything, so we're putting our foot down." That's a mischaracterisation of the criticism they've got. "You there. Stop! Cryptography is very hard. Don't roll your own; or do but don't release it as a product for end users." followed by "You there. Stop! We suggested that you didn't release it for end users, but you did. Well, here's a list of bugs. Don't just fix these and think everything is good, there are probably other bugs and the whole thing is based on weird wrong ideas." followed by "You there. Stop! No, really, just stop. Here's a list of bugs. These are not subtle hard to find bugs. These are obvious bugs that anyone doing crypto really should have been aware of. The presence of these bugs demonstrates lack-of-clue. Please, stop hyping the product as secure, stop distributing as a tool for end users to use." People get exasperated. It doesn't help that some of the responses from the developers were defensive and aggressive and dismissive. tl;dr have fun with crypto and building stuff. Just don't think it's secure, and especially don't release it as secure. Especially don't release it as a browser plugin ready for naive end users.
- zainny 13y ago
  I think I do understand what you're saying Dan, but do you really believe that cryptographic software isn't something you can gradually improve on? How do you explain the fact that the majority/all of the crypto libraries we rely on today have been gradually improved over time, fixed as bugs have been found, etc? I think you've severely mischaracterised the way crypto software is developed. You fix the bugs and you move on. That's the only way to progress, and that's exactly what the developers have been doing. I can't fault them for that.
  - jmgao 13y ago
    There is a difference between starting with a reasonably well written core and fixing issues that are discovered, and starting with a product that demonstrates essentially no understanding of cryptography beyond the bare minimum and trying to debug a working cryptosystem into existence. It's bad enough to try that with regular software, but doing it with crypto is insane.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    He's not mischaracterizing the way crypto software is developed. You are.
    - windexh8er 13y ago
      Please characterize the proper way for us of the uninformed...
      - tptacek 13y ago
        All software has bugs. There's no piece of real-world general-purpose software that you can't look at and say "this was improved incrementally as bugs were found". But not all software has the same sensitivity. In the weeks before Netscape Navigator shipped in the mid-90s, Jamie Zawinski slept under his desk at work trying to make it reliable. The builds from the night before launch crashed! Nobody thought they'd make it. That's a story anyone on a commercial dev team can probably tell you; it's the oldest story in product development. That kind of incremental development works fine when you're shipping the first web browser, or even the first version of a new web browser. It does not work when you are shipping cryptography. Nate Lawson is fond of saying, "plan to budget 10x for the validation of a new cryptosystem as you to implementation". You probably can't actually be doing that when your whole cryptosystem changes 4 times in 2 years. The difference is between handling bugs and expecting bugs. Netscape expected bugs. Crypto software can't do that.
Mithaldu 13y ago
The idea is that they should, instead of continuing to write that software and endanger the public, go and study crypto in deep detail. Just how you don't build a production-ready nuclear reactor by "learning while doing", and instead go and study many fields of engineering first and actively run prototype designs by many peers before publishing, should the cryptocat dev have done the same.
hilko 13y ago
I'd say it's akin to me building a high-speed car that randomly stops braking, severely endangering whoever uses it. As long as it's just me and other high-speed car enthusiasts playing around with it, that's fine. But if I package it up as a DIY package, ready for the real world, and lots of people start building/using my faulty car, I would consider it quite important to add a huge disclaimer.
MaulingMonkey 13y ago
> What right do you have A first amendment right. > You have absolutely no right to complain Freedom of speech includes freedom to complain. > in much the same way I don't have any right to look at your Github repo ...per the fourth amendment for my private repros. I'll assume you're referring to my public repros instead of trying to compare as "the same" something that goes directly against someone's constitutional rights, with something that's explicitly protected by someone's constitutional rights. > tell you you're a terrible developer and you should never touch a computer again. ...but this part is well within your first amendment rights as well. And if you think I've been undermining the pursuit of life and liberty as much as broken crypto can, repeatedly, despite fair warning, I'd dearly hope you'd exercise said rights. Rudeness and hurt egos are more survivable than broken crypto. Learning crypto is fine, but not at the expense of those who's lives may depend upon it. Whether or not they'll learn isn't the question: learning takes time, period, full stop. Time that cannot be afforded by those who would depend on said crypto.
- 02 13y ago
  Not everyone lives in the USA. Your amendments are utterly irrelevant to Europeans, for example.
  - MaulingMonkey 13y ago
    > Not everyone lives in the USA. And? The same ideals and rights embodied within our constitution can be found as similarly protected rights well outside of the USA. Even ignoring that, the point would still stand: The blanket statement that "you" (generalizing to all those harshly critiquing the continued development of Cryptocat) "don't have the right" is incorrect. If you suppose that freedom of speech isn't a universal human right, you could argue that not everybody has the right. But I would disagree with that assertion, as would the signatories of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > Your amendments are utterly irrelevant to Europeans, for example. They are utterly relevant not only in history, and how they affect those you may interact with, but also -- as is occurring here -- in the discussion of what rights one should (or shouldn't) have, by pointing out what rights were deemed worthy of enshrining in the highest laws of one of the largest countries of this world. They may not be law in Europe, but that's a far cry from being irrelevant.
hannibal5 13y ago
Everyone has right to their personal opinion. Not everyone has right to professional opinion. If these people were humble and would admit that this is just software for them to learn about cryptography. They would receive help and support. What they are doing is promoting cryptocat as maintained secure system.
rmc 13y ago
No one's saying they aren't earnest, people are saying they aren't competent. The complaints aren't posh "we disapprove" rants, they are legislate concerns. Imagine a Web server that didn't understand the Http from IE. You'd call them incompetent.
dangayle 13y ago
Because people's lives could/are at stake. Learning to enjoy & build crypto? Awesome. Trying to improve your product? Awesome. Promoting your product as secure when the security experts say otherwise? Not awesome.

by zainny 13y ago

mst 13y ago

Actually, I'd entirely support your right to do that. And his to tell you to fuck off and ignore you from then on if you did.

rschmitty 13y ago

I think all you should ask of them is honesty, if their track record has truly been this bad. "Here is our secure product for all" vs "Help us make our product secure for all" If someone is learning crypto for fun and enjoyment they should seek advice of experts no matter how much of a jerk the expert may be. This isnt really the same level of a random github project 'convert your old php into haskell with 1 click!' I don't think anyone has expectations of that being 100% accurate. People on HN flipped out over Linode, they made a mistake, they fessed up. People just want honesty. Also, everyone has any right to complain, at least until prism comes a knockin

DanBC 13y ago

> Like I said, the developers seem to be earnestly trying to improve their product based on the feedback they are getting. Cryptographic software isn't something that you can improve by a process of gradual refinement. Crypto can have small, subtle, bugs. Those bugs could mean that the product is worthless. A skilled, knowledgeable researcher could audit the code closely, and report any bugs they find. Cryptocat could fix all of those bugs. Does that mean it's secure? No - because crypto is hard. > What more can you ask of them? I ask that they make the disclaimers much bolder and bigger. I ask that they emphasise the experimental, untested, unscrutinised nature of Cryptocat. > "You there. Stop. You shouldn't be building this because we the superior internet community think you're a terrible person who will never learn anything, so we're putting our foot down." That's a mischaracterisation of the criticism they've got. "You there. Stop! Cryptography is very hard. Don't roll your own; or do but don't release it as a product for end users." followed by "You there. Stop! We suggested that you didn't release it for end users, but you did. Well, here's a list of bugs. Don't just fix these and think everything is good, there are probably other bugs and the whole thing is based on weird wrong ideas." followed by "You there. Stop! No, really, just stop. Here's a list of bugs. These are not subtle hard to find bugs. These are obvious bugs that anyone doing crypto really should have been aware of. The presence of these bugs demonstrates lack-of-clue. Please, stop hyping the product as secure, stop distributing as a tool for end users to use." People get exasperated. It doesn't help that some of the responses from the developers were defensive and aggressive and dismissive. tl;dr have fun with crypto and building stuff. Just don't think it's secure, and especially don't release it as secure. Especially don't release it as a browser plugin ready for naive end users.

zainny 13y ago
I think I do understand what you're saying Dan, but do you really believe that cryptographic software isn't something you can gradually improve on? How do you explain the fact that the majority/all of the crypto libraries we rely on today have been gradually improved over time, fixed as bugs have been found, etc? I think you've severely mischaracterised the way crypto software is developed. You fix the bugs and you move on. That's the only way to progress, and that's exactly what the developers have been doing. I can't fault them for that.
- jmgao 13y ago
  There is a difference between starting with a reasonably well written core and fixing issues that are discovered, and starting with a product that demonstrates essentially no understanding of cryptography beyond the bare minimum and trying to debug a working cryptosystem into existence. It's bad enough to try that with regular software, but doing it with crypto is insane.
- tptacek 13y ago
  He's not mischaracterizing the way crypto software is developed. You are.
  - windexh8er 13y ago
    Please characterize the proper way for us of the uninformed...
    - tptacek 13y ago
      All software has bugs. There's no piece of real-world general-purpose software that you can't look at and say "this was improved incrementally as bugs were found". But not all software has the same sensitivity. In the weeks before Netscape Navigator shipped in the mid-90s, Jamie Zawinski slept under his desk at work trying to make it reliable. The builds from the night before launch crashed! Nobody thought they'd make it. That's a story anyone on a commercial dev team can probably tell you; it's the oldest story in product development. That kind of incremental development works fine when you're shipping the first web browser, or even the first version of a new web browser. It does not work when you are shipping cryptography. Nate Lawson is fond of saying, "plan to budget 10x for the validation of a new cryptosystem as you to implementation". You probably can't actually be doing that when your whole cryptosystem changes 4 times in 2 years. The difference is between handling bugs and expecting bugs. Netscape expected bugs. Crypto software can't do that.

Mithaldu 13y ago

The idea is that they should, instead of continuing to write that software and endanger the public, go and study crypto in deep detail. Just how you don't build a production-ready nuclear reactor by "learning while doing", and instead go and study many fields of engineering first and actively run prototype designs by many peers before publishing, should the cryptocat dev have done the same.

hilko 13y ago

I'd say it's akin to me building a high-speed car that randomly stops braking, severely endangering whoever uses it. As long as it's just me and other high-speed car enthusiasts playing around with it, that's fine. But if I package it up as a DIY package, ready for the real world, and lots of people start building/using my faulty car, I would consider it quite important to add a huge disclaimer.

MaulingMonkey 13y ago

> What right do you have A first amendment right. > You have absolutely no right to complain Freedom of speech includes freedom to complain. > in much the same way I don't have any right to look at your Github repo ...per the fourth amendment for my private repros. I'll assume you're referring to my public repros instead of trying to compare as "the same" something that goes directly against someone's constitutional rights, with something that's explicitly protected by someone's constitutional rights. > tell you you're a terrible developer and you should never touch a computer again. ...but this part is well within your first amendment rights as well. And if you think I've been undermining the pursuit of life and liberty as much as broken crypto can, repeatedly, despite fair warning, I'd dearly hope you'd exercise said rights. Rudeness and hurt egos are more survivable than broken crypto. Learning crypto is fine, but not at the expense of those who's lives may depend upon it. Whether or not they'll learn isn't the question: learning takes time, period, full stop. Time that cannot be afforded by those who would depend on said crypto.

02 13y ago
Not everyone lives in the USA. Your amendments are utterly irrelevant to Europeans, for example.
- MaulingMonkey 13y ago
  > Not everyone lives in the USA. And? The same ideals and rights embodied within our constitution can be found as similarly protected rights well outside of the USA. Even ignoring that, the point would still stand: The blanket statement that "you" (generalizing to all those harshly critiquing the continued development of Cryptocat) "don't have the right" is incorrect. If you suppose that freedom of speech isn't a universal human right, you could argue that not everybody has the right. But I would disagree with that assertion, as would the signatories of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > Your amendments are utterly irrelevant to Europeans, for example. They are utterly relevant not only in history, and how they affect those you may interact with, but also -- as is occurring here -- in the discussion of what rights one should (or shouldn't) have, by pointing out what rights were deemed worthy of enshrining in the highest laws of one of the largest countries of this world. They may not be law in Europe, but that's a far cry from being irrelevant.

hannibal5 13y ago

Everyone has right to their personal opinion. Not everyone has right to professional opinion. If these people were humble and would admit that this is just software for them to learn about cryptography. They would receive help and support. What they are doing is promoting cryptocat as maintained secure system.

rmc 13y ago

No one's saying they aren't earnest, people are saying they aren't competent. The complaints aren't posh "we disapprove" rants, they are legislate concerns. Imagine a Web server that didn't understand the Http from IE. You'd call them incompetent.

dangayle 13y ago

Because people's lives could/are at stake. Learning to enjoy & build crypto? Awesome. Trying to improve your product? Awesome. Promoting your product as secure when the security experts say otherwise? Not awesome.