4 ms·

"Since SSL keys are mentioned, I assume SSL was used in communication. This means the claim that Lavabit did nothing to protect headers is false." That is like

"Since SSL keys are mentioned, I assume SSL was used in communication. This means the claim that Lavabit did nothing to protect headers is false." That is like saying that GMail is protecting the privacy of your headers, because GMail uses SSL. "This is true, however body of the message may contain encrypted information, which is useless to observer" Except that in the case of Lavabit, that encryption was just a side show since all the cryptographic operations were performed on the server. "current technology of the email can not do what Lavabit tried to do if the adversary can do what the courts said it can do" Except that someone who encrypts their message bodies before sending the message i.e. performing cryptographic operations locally leaves the server unable to fulfill demands for plaintexts. ">>> That is why PGP and S/MIME provide you with better security No they do not, unless you can establish a peer-to-peer channel with your other party. In which case you're not using email anymore." Really, you think I am not using email anymore if I am running my own personal mail server? It is also false to claim that one must have a peer-to-peer system to protect header information, or that PGP on its own is not enough. You could broadcast an encrypted message via Usenet. You could use anonymous remailers (e.g. "Type I" remailers, which use PGP). In all these cases, however, you need to perform your cryptographic operations locally. "There are no "choices" that allow you to create secure email server in situation in which Lavabit found itself." Sure there are: Ladar could have sold smartcards instead of selling cryptography as a service. There, one design decision that could have given his users meaningful security while still maintaining the convenience of webmail. To boost security even more, those smartcards could be coupled with a thumb drive that includes the necessary client software, so that Lavabit could not pull a Hushmail on its users.

smsm42 13y ago
>>> That is like saying that GMail is protecting the privacy of your headers, because GMail uses SSL. It does. Unlike Lavabit, though, there is ample reason to assume they invalidate this protection by granting governmental adversaries access to the information stored on their servers - the thing that Lavabit refused to do, at least on mass scale. >>> since all the cryptographic operations were performed on the server. I don't see what precludes you from sending emails already encrypted. Security has layers. You are not limited to using just one. >>> leaves the server unable to fulfill demands for plaintexts. You forgot to read the part of my answer where I use the word "envelope". >>> Really, you think I am not using email anymore if I am running my own personal mail server? It is irrelevant what you personally are doing - it is relevant what Lavabit was trying to do. They were trying to provide certain service - for people that - like, I assume, most of Guardian journalists - are not technically advanced enough to run a secure mail server on their personal computer and set up everything else in a way that allows it to accept email from the internet. This proved impossible, thus Lavabit is not with us anymore. That was my whole point. >>> Ladar could have sold smartcards instead of selling cryptography as a service. He could also have sold hotdogs and Carribean timeshares, how that's related to the topic? He was trying to create a secure email as a service - for those that can not create the same by themselves, which in 99.999% of the population of email users. Not provide solution for completely different problem such as key exchange and creating VPNs and other stuff.

smsm42 13y ago

>>> That is like saying that GMail is protecting the privacy of your headers, because GMail uses SSL. It does. Unlike Lavabit, though, there is ample reason to assume they invalidate this protection by granting governmental adversaries access to the information stored on their servers - the thing that Lavabit refused to do, at least on mass scale. >>> since all the cryptographic operations were performed on the server. I don't see what precludes you from sending emails already encrypted. Security has layers. You are not limited to using just one. >>> leaves the server unable to fulfill demands for plaintexts. You forgot to read the part of my answer where I use the word "envelope". >>> Really, you think I am not using email anymore if I am running my own personal mail server? It is irrelevant what you personally are doing - it is relevant what Lavabit was trying to do. They were trying to provide certain service - for people that - like, I assume, most of Guardian journalists - are not technically advanced enough to run a secure mail server on their personal computer and set up everything else in a way that allows it to accept email from the internet. This proved impossible, thus Lavabit is not with us anymore. That was my whole point. >>> Ladar could have sold smartcards instead of selling cryptography as a service. He could also have sold hotdogs and Carribean timeshares, how that's related to the topic? He was trying to create a secure email as a service - for those that can not create the same by themselves, which in 99.999% of the population of email users. Not provide solution for completely different problem such as key exchange and creating VPNs and other stuff.