5 ms·

I don't think you are evaluating the tradeoff at all here. WhatsApp won by making a friction free experience. You are adding email and pass phrases, or any on

I don't think you are evaluating the tradeoff at all here. WhatsApp won by making a friction free experience. You are adding email and pass phrases, or any one of the dozen things that make it harder to use. I accept there is a good solution, but I don't think you are thinking about the problem broadly.

eropple 13y ago
There is no "tradeoff" here for a reasonably vertebrate hominid. When you demand user trust, security is core. If it's not core, go home because you cannot be trusted to make adult decisions. The people using your software are more important than your fucking term sheets, man.
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  You do realize all desktop software has this same vulnerability. I think you are being a tad hyperbolic. WhatsApp has some blame, but Google should have figured out how to let applications sandbox data on the SD card without having to do roll your own AES key management system. It could have been as simple as put the data in a folder named "private/appname/".
  - eropple 13y ago
    OS X doesn't have that problem when using sandboxed applications. I choose to opt out by installing non-sandboxed applications, but I know that I'm doing so and I don't install non-sandboxed stuff from people I don't trust. I also have much more accessible tools for inspecting the behaviors of applications, should I want to do so, on OS X than Android - I can do my own homework if I have a notion. (I don't expect end users to do so, but the option is there.) And Android external storage is explicitly not for sensitive, in-the-clear data. Ever. It doesn't matter what Google "should have" done. They documented What Not To Do, and then WhatsApp went ahead and Did.
    - jcampbell1 13y ago
      For what it is worth, I wasn't interested in a privacy debate, but rather technical advice. I have come to the conclusion after a bit of research, the only way to make this backup work is to require a passphrase, or for the OS to provide sandboxing. Android 4.4 provides the necessary sandboxing. I am sure WhatsApp will use it. I don't agree with WhatsApp's choice to not require a passphrase, but I at least understand their thinking. They chose frictionless backups with the risk that malicious apps would be able to read you text messages. That is not the choice I would like, but it is not a choice made by an invertebrate. Hacker News at times reminds me of this scene from the Princess Bride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ulbI9k5eA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ulbI9k5eA
      - eropple 13y ago
        It is a choice made by someone prioritizing user acquisition over treating users fairly, and there's no defensible argument for that.
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    > Google should have figured out how to let applications sandbox data on the SD It's called put your data in /data. You get a private app data folder by default. /sdcard and /data are both internal storage on the majority of phones, neither points at a physical sd card slot. And seriously, who wants their messages stored on /sdcard anyway? You pop out the sdcard and all your text messages vanish? What kind of brain dead decision is that?
    - jdewald 13y ago
      Reading the article, the data the "exploit" looks at is only if the user has turned on the backup feature (disabled by default).
      - miken123 13y ago
        The backup feature is on by default, scheduled to backup at 4:00 daily. I can't find an option to turn it off.
    - tjgq 13y ago
      I think the widespread practice of Android applications storing potentially large data in /sdcard dates to a time when /data was extremely small on most phones, and would fill up quite rapidly if you had a large number of applications installed. I don't think that's the case any longer, at least certainly not for an SMS app.

eropple 13y ago

There is no "tradeoff" here for a reasonably vertebrate hominid. When you demand user trust, security is core. If it's not core, go home because you cannot be trusted to make adult decisions. The people using your software are more important than your fucking term sheets, man.

jcampbell1 13y ago
You do realize all desktop software has this same vulnerability. I think you are being a tad hyperbolic. WhatsApp has some blame, but Google should have figured out how to let applications sandbox data on the SD card without having to do roll your own AES key management system. It could have been as simple as put the data in a folder named "private/appname/".
- eropple 13y ago
  OS X doesn't have that problem when using sandboxed applications. I choose to opt out by installing non-sandboxed applications, but I know that I'm doing so and I don't install non-sandboxed stuff from people I don't trust. I also have much more accessible tools for inspecting the behaviors of applications, should I want to do so, on OS X than Android - I can do my own homework if I have a notion. (I don't expect end users to do so, but the option is there.) And Android external storage is explicitly not for sensitive, in-the-clear data. Ever. It doesn't matter what Google "should have" done. They documented What Not To Do, and then WhatsApp went ahead and Did.
  - jcampbell1 13y ago
    For what it is worth, I wasn't interested in a privacy debate, but rather technical advice. I have come to the conclusion after a bit of research, the only way to make this backup work is to require a passphrase, or for the OS to provide sandboxing. Android 4.4 provides the necessary sandboxing. I am sure WhatsApp will use it. I don't agree with WhatsApp's choice to not require a passphrase, but I at least understand their thinking. They chose frictionless backups with the risk that malicious apps would be able to read you text messages. That is not the choice I would like, but it is not a choice made by an invertebrate. Hacker News at times reminds me of this scene from the Princess Bride: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ulbI9k5eA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ulbI9k5eA
    - eropple 13y ago
      It is a choice made by someone prioritizing user acquisition over treating users fairly, and there's no defensible argument for that.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > Google should have figured out how to let applications sandbox data on the SD It's called put your data in /data. You get a private app data folder by default. /sdcard and /data are both internal storage on the majority of phones, neither points at a physical sd card slot. And seriously, who wants their messages stored on /sdcard anyway? You pop out the sdcard and all your text messages vanish? What kind of brain dead decision is that?
  - jdewald 13y ago
    Reading the article, the data the "exploit" looks at is only if the user has turned on the backup feature (disabled by default).
    - miken123 13y ago
      The backup feature is on by default, scheduled to backup at 4:00 daily. I can't find an option to turn it off.
  - tjgq 13y ago
    I think the widespread practice of Android applications storing potentially large data in /sdcard dates to a time when /data was extremely small on most phones, and would fill up quite rapidly if you had a large number of applications installed. I don't think that's the case any longer, at least certainly not for an SMS app.