3 ms·
natdempk and tptacek have both asserted that TextSecure is trustworthy and solid by dint of being implemented and designed by reliable experts. This pretty muc
by nathan-at-least 13y ago
natdempk and tptacek have both asserted that TextSecure is trustworthy and solid by dint of being implemented and designed by reliable experts. This pretty much boils down to argument by authority.
mandalar12 asks about "the same level of analysis on TextSecure". Since our (Least Authority's) audit and the iSEC audit are public, random people on the internet can know what that level is, without having to know or rely on Least Authority or iSEC to be non-malicious.
With enough eyes all bugs are shallow, but to whom? We need to communicate transparently to achieve this ideal.
Disclaimers: I worked on the Least Authority audit of Cryptocat; I've worked at iSEC in the past; I've met Moxie Marlinspike and Trevor Perrin and greatly respect their expertise and motivations; I also don't know if they've been infected by malicious puppetmaster aliens since I last saw them.
- daira 13y agoI don't actually see any assertions on this thread by natdempk or tptacek claiming that TextSecure is "trustworthy" and/or "solid". Did I miss something? My own opinion is that both strong cryptographic and security engineering expertise on the part of designers and implementors, and multiple independent published security audits, are necessary to consider an app trustworthy -- but still not sufficient, given the poor state of platform security and the lack of support most current platforms (operating systems, browsers, etc.) give for isolation between apps. Disclaimer: I worked on the Least Authority audit of Cryptocat, and in general get paid for similar auditing. I'm also designing a programming language (Noether) that is intended to facilitate security reviews.