4 ms·

On the one hand, you're understating the case: Cryptocat has often been breakable within days to attackers with very modest resources. On the other hand, you'

by rst 13y ago

On the one hand, you're understating the case: Cryptocat has often been breakable within days to attackers with very modest resources. On the other hand, you're missing the point. If crypto software is going to be used, it has to be usable --- and if the setup instructions are obscure, it won't get installed. If the procedures for using it are arcane, it won't get used. That's what CryptoCat is getting right: the UX. The unsafe internals make that dangerous, but it's still worth studying.

scythe 13y ago
If you're not willing to deal with "obscure" setup instructions, you probably don't need strong crypto. If you do need strong crypto, i.e. your life and/or autonomy depend on it, you will hopefully be willing to take ten minutes of your time to install a properly written piece of software. Cryptocat is cargo-cult cryptography. People think cryptography is cool, so they use cryptocat. They don't actually need the strong encryption it would [yet has never actually been able to] provide, but they think their two-bit marijuana transaction or liquor-soaked 19th birthday celebration is worthy of strong encryption, but not of the actual effort required to use it. So they use cryptocat. These people who use cryptocat are stupid. The popularity of cryptocat just increases the risk that someone who actually needs security will use it, and could very likely experience severe injury as a result. That's not okay; it's not relevant whether someone is "being nice" or "learning" or whatever, it needs to not happen. Cryptocat is bad through and through, from conception to implementation. Maybe if the tagline was "Cryptocat provides encrypted communication that probably isn't secure", people wouldn't pull out their hair.
- manish_gill 13y ago
  Wow, the amount of bullshit in this comment is mind blowing. So only a hardcore developer who can setup mutt in 2 minutes, customizes Emacs in his sleep, write code in Assembler needs cryptography? Anyone who wants an easier UI to handle crypto doesn't deserve to use it, right? The rest of the people are just riding the bandwagon because they think it's cool and don't really have any secrets? You go so far as to call all of them stupid. Just who in the world do you think you are?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I don't know what you're replying to but it's certainly not the comment you posted this on.
- rst 13y ago
  From a recent interview with Brewster Kahle[1]: Q: Do you encrypt all your own email, as a result of this stuff? A: No, that's really hard. Brewster is the founder of the Internet Archive; the subject of the interview was an NSL that he fought off in court. He's also a pretty smart techie in his own right. But I suppose you could still argue that he's lazy, stupid, or not in need of strong crypto. Or maybe, just maybe, the available tools for the purpose take a lot more than ten minutes to install and configure well enough for even an intelligent and technically skilled user to have any confidence that they've done it correctly. People can't install good crypto tools in ten minutes. Not even people like Brewster. And if you're making one of those tools, and you want it to be anything more than a research toy, that's your problem, not theirs. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like-to-get-a-national-security-letter.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-... (If you want to see the part I quoted, scroll right to the end.)
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    People don't need cryptography everywhere. Where they need it, they should be willing to spend ten minutes. Where they don't need it, such as coupon mailing lists, they go with the flow. The only way to have 100% encrypted email is to avoid a massive number of services. This is something to be done only when it actually provides safety. Basically you're arguing a point (100% crypto) that is completely different from the post you're replying to (crypto on critical conversations).
    - im3w1l 13y ago
      People need cryptography everywhere. Otherwise the fact that cryptography is being used leaks information.
StavrosK 13y ago
> If crypto software is going to be used, it has to be usable If crypto software is going to be labeled crypto software, it has to be secure. Otherwise it's just software. Yes, I agree with you. Crypto software must be usable, otherwise it will never catch on. The average person doesn't care about their security, and thus the smallest compromise in UX for improved security will lose you large amounts of users. However, if you design something fantastically usable and pretty and call it "secure software" doesn't make it so. I think that this whole argument stems from people misunderstanding the term "secure". Cryptographers, when talking about "security", consider it more or less binary: "Secure" is something for which no attack (even theoretical) exists. Laymen mean "my spouse/neighbour/boss/ISP/government can't read my messages". In the former meaning, CryptoCat is entirely broken and useless. In the latter meaning, CryptoCat is on the low end of the "security" scale. It can be used for hiding things from your neighbour, assuming your neighbour doesn't have lots of technical knowledge. If it were advertised as such, I don't think anyone would be lambasting them now, but it was advertised as "cryptographer" secure when it's probably not even "layman" secure. Having "cryptographer" security means you have to make UX concessions. You just can't have both. Saying "but CryptoCat has both great UX and great security" is false, because it doesn't. It has great UX at the expense of security, and they should probably make people aware of this more. All this having been said, I do recognize that sometimes you need to sacrifice security to get better UX (see iMessage), and that is perfectly reasonable, and probably necessary. I would love to see more semi-secure software with great UX that people will use more than the completely insecure software now, and I really hope CryptoCat achieves its goal of security and ease of use and becomes more popular.

by rst 13y ago

scythe 13y ago

If you're not willing to deal with "obscure" setup instructions, you probably don't need strong crypto. If you do need strong crypto, i.e. your life and/or autonomy depend on it, you will hopefully be willing to take ten minutes of your time to install a properly written piece of software. Cryptocat is cargo-cult cryptography. People think cryptography is cool, so they use cryptocat. They don't actually need the strong encryption it would [yet has never actually been able to] provide, but they think their two-bit marijuana transaction or liquor-soaked 19th birthday celebration is worthy of strong encryption, but not of the actual effort required to use it. So they use cryptocat. These people who use cryptocat are stupid. The popularity of cryptocat just increases the risk that someone who actually needs security will use it, and could very likely experience severe injury as a result. That's not okay; it's not relevant whether someone is "being nice" or "learning" or whatever, it needs to not happen. Cryptocat is bad through and through, from conception to implementation. Maybe if the tagline was "Cryptocat provides encrypted communication that probably isn't secure", people wouldn't pull out their hair.

manish_gill 13y ago
Wow, the amount of bullshit in this comment is mind blowing. So only a hardcore developer who can setup mutt in 2 minutes, customizes Emacs in his sleep, write code in Assembler needs cryptography? Anyone who wants an easier UI to handle crypto doesn't deserve to use it, right? The rest of the people are just riding the bandwagon because they think it's cool and don't really have any secrets? You go so far as to call all of them stupid. Just who in the world do you think you are?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I don't know what you're replying to but it's certainly not the comment you posted this on.
rst 13y ago
From a recent interview with Brewster Kahle[1]: Q: Do you encrypt all your own email, as a result of this stuff? A: No, that's really hard. Brewster is the founder of the Internet Archive; the subject of the interview was an NSL that he fought off in court. He's also a pretty smart techie in his own right. But I suppose you could still argue that he's lazy, stupid, or not in need of strong crypto. Or maybe, just maybe, the available tools for the purpose take a lot more than ten minutes to install and configure well enough for even an intelligent and technically skilled user to have any confidence that they've done it correctly. People can't install good crypto tools in ten minutes. Not even people like Brewster. And if you're making one of those tools, and you want it to be anything more than a research toy, that's your problem, not theirs. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-its-like-to-get-a-national-security-letter.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-... (If you want to see the part I quoted, scroll right to the end.)
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  People don't need cryptography everywhere. Where they need it, they should be willing to spend ten minutes. Where they don't need it, such as coupon mailing lists, they go with the flow. The only way to have 100% encrypted email is to avoid a massive number of services. This is something to be done only when it actually provides safety. Basically you're arguing a point (100% crypto) that is completely different from the post you're replying to (crypto on critical conversations).
  - im3w1l 13y ago
    People need cryptography everywhere. Otherwise the fact that cryptography is being used leaks information.

StavrosK 13y ago

> If crypto software is going to be used, it has to be usable If crypto software is going to be labeled crypto software, it has to be secure. Otherwise it's just software. Yes, I agree with you. Crypto software must be usable, otherwise it will never catch on. The average person doesn't care about their security, and thus the smallest compromise in UX for improved security will lose you large amounts of users. However, if you design something fantastically usable and pretty and call it "secure software" doesn't make it so. I think that this whole argument stems from people misunderstanding the term "secure". Cryptographers, when talking about "security", consider it more or less binary: "Secure" is something for which no attack (even theoretical) exists. Laymen mean "my spouse/neighbour/boss/ISP/government can't read my messages". In the former meaning, CryptoCat is entirely broken and useless. In the latter meaning, CryptoCat is on the low end of the "security" scale. It can be used for hiding things from your neighbour, assuming your neighbour doesn't have lots of technical knowledge. If it were advertised as such, I don't think anyone would be lambasting them now, but it was advertised as "cryptographer" secure when it's probably not even "layman" secure. Having "cryptographer" security means you have to make UX concessions. You just can't have both. Saying "but CryptoCat has both great UX and great security" is false, because it doesn't. It has great UX at the expense of security, and they should probably make people aware of this more. All this having been said, I do recognize that sometimes you need to sacrifice security to get better UX (see iMessage), and that is perfectly reasonable, and probably necessary. I would love to see more semi-secure software with great UX that people will use more than the completely insecure software now, and I really hope CryptoCat achieves its goal of security and ease of use and becomes more popular.