4 ms·

This is not a "good" article. It's very hand wavey with lots of fud. For example, he talks about the chicken and egg problem of delivering javascript over an

This is not a "good" article. It's very hand wavey with lots of fud. For example, he talks about the chicken and egg problem of delivering javascript over an insecure connection and then solves it later with SSL/TLS (but he doesn't acknowledge that this is a valid solution). Furthermore, we're all harping on javascript when you can't download PuTTY over an SSL connection. He talks about browser cache but says that javascript can't control it. That doesn't mean it can't be controlled (see MANIFEST file). I could go on, but the point is made, there are answers to the problems raised in the article. They may not be _easy_ (as the article complains some things are complex), but it's security on wildly complex systems...of course it's hard.

dublinben 12y ago
>we're all harping on javascript when you can't download PuTTY over an SSL connection This shouldn't matter, and would just provide a false sense of security. You ought to be verifying the signature of any program you're installing before you use it. Since you're running Windows the point is probably moot, but it is possible to install software reasonably securely.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  But those sigs are also coming over a non-ssl connection:-p Honestly, whenever you download anything, evne over SSL, you're essentially trusting that the remote computer is not only who you think the computer is, but the person you expect to be controlling it is the only person controlling it. Out-of-band communication built out-of in-person trust are really the only way around that (i.e. trusting someone who trusts the PuTTY devs and gets you the hash/sig).
  - dublinben 12y ago
    You only need to trust their signature to really be sure. That's why the Web of Trust aspect of PGP/GPG is so important. It's probably more valuable than the ability to encrypt a few emails.
    - schoen 12y ago
      It doesn't seem that PuTTY has made very effective use of this or managed to explain the problem to most of their users. http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-safely-is-nearly-impossible/ http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-safe... http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/05/followup-to-downloading-software-safely/ http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/05/followup-to-downloading-s...
hluska 12y ago
I think that I disagree, but I am not experienced enough to know what I don't know. Judging from your response, you know way more than me, so if it's okay with you, I will tell you why I disagree. Then, it would make my day (and help me a tremendous amount) if you would tell me why I am wrong. a) The chicken and egg problem of delivering javascript: I am far from being good at this stuff, but I am confident that, given the opportunity if you deliver .js (or anything else) over an insecure connection, I can modify the content before it ever reaches the user. As you and the article state, you could solve this problem by delivering the .js file with SSL/TLS. But, if you do this, I presume that you would need to encrypt every single resource on the page. And, if you have already gone that far, what would you gain by implementing browser based crypto when you have already solved the problem? It strikes me that SSL/TLS are old enough to be well tested and researched, whereas if I wake up some morning and decide to implement my own crypto, I'm going to f* something up. I'd rather let smarter people do the heavy lifting. But, I don't know what I don't know. What don't I know? Furthermore, we're all harping on javascript when you can't download PuTTY over an SSL connection. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you can download PuTTY via an insecure connection, an attacker can just as trivially swap out the real version of PuTTY with a compromised version. That sounds really dangerous, but isn't that why the PuTTY developers add RSA/DSA signatures to their downloads page? I would argue that if someone is smart enough to find a collision in both RSA and DSA, they can likely find easier ways to attack me than to swap out the real version of PuTTY with a compromised version. What am I missing? disregard this question because I missed something very important - see my edit below He talks about browser cache but says that javascript can't control it. That doesn't mean it can't be controlled (see MANIFEST file). Thank you for this - I need to do some more reading. Though, wouldn't you get into the same problem where, unless you can control every single resource on the page (ie - serve it encrypted and make sure there are no XSS vulnerabilities) you can't guarantee that the browser is using the correct code? Then, doesn't that get back to the chicken and egg problem where if you're already implementing encryption, you don't need crypto in the browser? -- Some of the ideas on that page (ie - the inability to generate strong random numbers) are kind of outdated. I believe that Opera uses a cryptographically secure Math.Random(). And, I think that there is an API to accomplish this in other browsers. window.crypto.GetRandom or something? However, I still see all kinds of traffic with old versions of Internet Explorer (sorry to pick on IE). Wouldn't solving the crypto in a browser problem reliably require making everyone update to a modern browser? I hope that I'm not coming across as being difficult, but I would love to learn and would appreciate any help you would provide. Edited -- jimktrains2 wrote: But those sigs are also coming over a non-ssl connection:-p There goes my entire RSA/DSA argument! What a great thread...
tptacek 12y ago
I don't much like this article either, despite being its author, but I don't see how you've managed to refute its applicability to the application being discussed on the thread. The mutual exclusion referenced up thread is real.
- _dps 12y ago
  Because this article is highly cited, and because you strike me as a personality who would appreciate micro-detail feedback: there is a typo ("algoritms") in the first sentence that immediately threw off my attention from an otherwise quite interesting piece of writing. This is offered with respect and not a desire to nitpick. I hope it doesn't come across as annoying :)

dublinben 12y ago

>we're all harping on javascript when you can't download PuTTY over an SSL connection This shouldn't matter, and would just provide a false sense of security. You ought to be verifying the signature of any program you're installing before you use it. Since you're running Windows the point is probably moot, but it is possible to install software reasonably securely.

jimktrains2 12y ago
But those sigs are also coming over a non-ssl connection:-p Honestly, whenever you download anything, evne over SSL, you're essentially trusting that the remote computer is not only who you think the computer is, but the person you expect to be controlling it is the only person controlling it. Out-of-band communication built out-of in-person trust are really the only way around that (i.e. trusting someone who trusts the PuTTY devs and gets you the hash/sig).
- dublinben 12y ago
  You only need to trust their signature to really be sure. That's why the Web of Trust aspect of PGP/GPG is so important. It's probably more valuable than the ability to encrypt a few emails.
  - schoen 12y ago
    It doesn't seem that PuTTY has made very effective use of this or managed to explain the problem to most of their users. http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-safely-is-nearly-impossible/ http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-safe... http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/05/followup-to-downloading-software-safely/ http://noncombatant.org/2014/03/05/followup-to-downloading-s...

hluska 12y ago

I think that I disagree, but I am not experienced enough to know what I don't know. Judging from your response, you know way more than me, so if it's okay with you, I will tell you why I disagree. Then, it would make my day (and help me a tremendous amount) if you would tell me why I am wrong. a) The chicken and egg problem of delivering javascript: I am far from being good at this stuff, but I am confident that, given the opportunity if you deliver .js (or anything else) over an insecure connection, I can modify the content before it ever reaches the user. As you and the article state, you could solve this problem by delivering the .js file with SSL/TLS. But, if you do this, I presume that you would need to encrypt every single resource on the page. And, if you have already gone that far, what would you gain by implementing browser based crypto when you have already solved the problem? It strikes me that SSL/TLS are old enough to be well tested and researched, whereas if I wake up some morning and decide to implement my own crypto, I'm going to f* something up. I'd rather let smarter people do the heavy lifting. But, I don't know what I don't know. What don't I know? Furthermore, we're all harping on javascript when you can't download PuTTY over an SSL connection. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if you can download PuTTY via an insecure connection, an attacker can just as trivially swap out the real version of PuTTY with a compromised version. That sounds really dangerous, but isn't that why the PuTTY developers add RSA/DSA signatures to their downloads page? I would argue that if someone is smart enough to find a collision in both RSA and DSA, they can likely find easier ways to attack me than to swap out the real version of PuTTY with a compromised version. What am I missing? disregard this question because I missed something very important - see my edit below He talks about browser cache but says that javascript can't control it. That doesn't mean it can't be controlled (see MANIFEST file). Thank you for this - I need to do some more reading. Though, wouldn't you get into the same problem where, unless you can control every single resource on the page (ie - serve it encrypted and make sure there are no XSS vulnerabilities) you can't guarantee that the browser is using the correct code? Then, doesn't that get back to the chicken and egg problem where if you're already implementing encryption, you don't need crypto in the browser? -- Some of the ideas on that page (ie - the inability to generate strong random numbers) are kind of outdated. I believe that Opera uses a cryptographically secure Math.Random(). And, I think that there is an API to accomplish this in other browsers. window.crypto.GetRandom or something? However, I still see all kinds of traffic with old versions of Internet Explorer (sorry to pick on IE). Wouldn't solving the crypto in a browser problem reliably require making everyone update to a modern browser? I hope that I'm not coming across as being difficult, but I would love to learn and would appreciate any help you would provide. Edited -- jimktrains2 wrote: But those sigs are also coming over a non-ssl connection:-p There goes my entire RSA/DSA argument! What a great thread...

tptacek 12y ago

I don't much like this article either, despite being its author, but I don't see how you've managed to refute its applicability to the application being discussed on the thread. The mutual exclusion referenced up thread is real.

_dps 12y ago
Because this article is highly cited, and because you strike me as a personality who would appreciate micro-detail feedback: there is a typo ("algoritms") in the first sentence that immediately threw off my attention from an otherwise quite interesting piece of writing. This is offered with respect and not a desire to nitpick. I hope it doesn't come across as annoying :)