3 ms·
The usual argument against JS crypto is that a compromised (either technically or legally) host could send a malicious version of the code to steal your keys/da
by tlrobinson 13y ago
The usual argument against JS crypto is that a compromised (either technically or legally) host could send a malicious version of the code to steal your keys/data.
A browser extension could in theory be used to verify the code against a signature or something to that effect, or it could sandbox the crypto routines and keys from the app itself (though that wouldn't prevent the app from stealing the decrypted data)
- noselasd 13y agoWhat needs to happen for this to become generally usable is for the crypto part to be built into the browser - that way you only need to trust your browser and not a somewhat random plugin, nor the .js being served from a particular server. And it'll "just work", so ordinary people have a chance to use and trust it too.
- tlrobinson 13y agoSure, eventually, however I'd be just as comfortable using a plugin from, say, the EFF as I would having it built into the browser. It would be a fine stepping-stone (similar to how Google Gears contained many features which influenced HTML5) And as I mentioned, merely having the crypto parts and key management built into the browser isn't good enough because a malicious site could still trick you into decrypting data which it could then steal, even if the keys themselves are perfectly safe.