4 ms·

>What does this have to do with anything? How is the old sync system any different, then? The old one let you run your own server. It let you encrypt it with y

>What does this have to do with anything? How is the old sync system any different, then? The old one let you run your own server. It let you encrypt it with your own key, which you could know was generated from a good entropy source, not been shared, and is store securely. As it is, it's possible the new sync has a backdoor, even one many people at Mozilla don't know. There is also no point in deliberately increasing the attack surface for no reason. >You are confusing key lengths from algorithms like RSA with symmetric algorithms. The keys that are used for encrypting data will be either 128 or 256 bits (haven't checked) and used with some symmetric cipher. I may be wrong, but I thought the old sync used an RSA key as it's used for authenticating the user as well as actually saving/accessing the data (probably symmetric for the actual storage, with the key encrypted using the RSA key).

veeti 13y ago
> The old one let you run your own server. https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html > It let you encrypt it with your own key Huh? No, it didn't. The key was generated automatically by the client just like it is now. > As it is, it's possible the new sync has a backdoor, even one many people at Mozilla don't know. How do you know the old one didn't? You have to trust Mozilla at some point. What if the client generates bad encryption keys on purpose, or so on? > I may be wrong, but I thought the old sync used an RSA key as it's used for authenticating the user as well as actually saving/accessing the data (probably symmetric for the actual storage, with the key encrypted using the RSA key). RSA keys were scrapped from the system a long time ago as they provided no benefit.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  >Huh? No, it didn't. The key was generated automatically by the client just like it is now. >What if the client generates bad encryption keys on purpose, or so on? Fair enough, I never used it, but I was under the impression the user could generate their own, even if just as an option. >RSA keys were scrapped from the system a long time ago as they provided no benefit. Exactly the problem. The benefit is invisible to (most) endusers, so in Mozilla logic, it doesn't exist for the user.
  - veeti 13y ago
    > Exactly the problem. The benefit is invisible to (most) endusers, so in Mozilla logic, it doesn't exist for the user. What is the benefit in using RSA with the sync protocol? What sort of experience do you have in the design of cryptographic protocols to comment on this? Or are you grasping at whatever random reasons you can find to take a shit on the Firefox developers? If you're interested in the reasons why asymmetric crypto was dropped, they are here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifiedCryptoProposal https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifiedCryptoPropo... https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifyCrypto https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifyCrypto TL;DR: There simply was no reason to use RSA. A faster and simpler protocol that is just as secure could be built without it.
rfk 13y ago
> The old one let you run your own server. This is still possible with the new system, although I'll admit the ease and usability of such a setup needs work (and IIRC there are some changes required before android devices can properly use a third-party server; it may take a few releases before this become as easy as it was with the old system). > As it is, it's possible the new sync has a backdoor, > even one many people at Mozilla don't know. Both the client and server are open-source, and you can verify that the client follows the protocol [1] and doesn't leak anything more than a PBKDF2-stretched password derivative to the server. It's about as backdoor-proof as any client/server system is likely to get. But yes, it is more dependent on the strength of your password than the previous sync system. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth-server/wiki/onepw-protocol https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth-server/wiki/onepw-protoc...

veeti 13y ago

> The old one let you run your own server. https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html > It let you encrypt it with your own key Huh? No, it didn't. The key was generated automatically by the client just like it is now. > As it is, it's possible the new sync has a backdoor, even one many people at Mozilla don't know. How do you know the old one didn't? You have to trust Mozilla at some point. What if the client generates bad encryption keys on purpose, or so on? > I may be wrong, but I thought the old sync used an RSA key as it's used for authenticating the user as well as actually saving/accessing the data (probably symmetric for the actual storage, with the key encrypted using the RSA key). RSA keys were scrapped from the system a long time ago as they provided no benefit.

blueskin_ 13y ago
>Huh? No, it didn't. The key was generated automatically by the client just like it is now. >What if the client generates bad encryption keys on purpose, or so on? Fair enough, I never used it, but I was under the impression the user could generate their own, even if just as an option. >RSA keys were scrapped from the system a long time ago as they provided no benefit. Exactly the problem. The benefit is invisible to (most) endusers, so in Mozilla logic, it doesn't exist for the user.
- veeti 13y ago
  > Exactly the problem. The benefit is invisible to (most) endusers, so in Mozilla logic, it doesn't exist for the user. What is the benefit in using RSA with the sync protocol? What sort of experience do you have in the design of cryptographic protocols to comment on this? Or are you grasping at whatever random reasons you can find to take a shit on the Firefox developers? If you're interested in the reasons why asymmetric crypto was dropped, they are here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifiedCryptoProposal https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifiedCryptoPropo... https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifyCrypto https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/SimplifyCrypto TL;DR: There simply was no reason to use RSA. A faster and simpler protocol that is just as secure could be built without it.

rfk 13y ago

> The old one let you run your own server. This is still possible with the new system, although I'll admit the ease and usability of such a setup needs work (and IIRC there are some changes required before android devices can properly use a third-party server; it may take a few releases before this become as easy as it was with the old system). > As it is, it's possible the new sync has a backdoor, > even one many people at Mozilla don't know. Both the client and server are open-source, and you can verify that the client follows the protocol [1] and doesn't leak anything more than a PBKDF2-stretched password derivative to the server. It's about as backdoor-proof as any client/server system is likely to get. But yes, it is more dependent on the strength of your password than the previous sync system. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth-server/wiki/onepw-protocol https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth-server/wiki/onepw-protoc...