4 ms·

Isn't the blob downloaded from Google's servers over a HSTS and cert-pinned TLS connection?[0] If someone has MitM'd Google, it's gonna be a bad day for a lot o

Isn't the blob downloaded from Google's servers over a HSTS and cert-pinned TLS connection?[0] If someone has MitM'd Google, it's gonna be a bad day for a lot of people. From my POV, the thing that's actually bothersome about this issue is that a closed-source blob is automatically inserted into a project that I -and others- had understood to be completely open-source. The fact that the Chromium Google Hotword code was later made opt-out -rather than opt-in- through a build-time configuration option is similarly troubling. [0] IIRC, Chromium does support enterprise TLS snooping/interception devices, but those certs have to be loaded into Chromium before such devices will work.

belorn 11y ago
Since it doesn't use the normal ways to download extension, I would assume it does not use TLS connection. Secret downloads has the problem to display certification errors and similar things to the users, so they would likely have to reimplemented quite a few code paths to make that work properly. https and tls is also not mentioned in either bug threads, which is a worrying sign. If it uses TLS, then the bug is less exploitable but does still violate security policy of the vetting process, signed code and license classification (closed-source blob). At minimum, it leaves anyone vulnerable to arbitrary code injection from Google.
- simoncion 11y ago
  It really looks like it uses the normal way to download extensions; the Web Store. I'd be more concerned that the only thing the patch seems to do is not activate the hotword extension. It seems to still download and install it. I mean, maybe I'm wrong here. I think that checking through https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/f269d3b548203e217e8c0080c2e22e7ae3efb51e/chrome/browser/search/hotword_service.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/f269d3b5482... for ENABLE_HOTWORDING is the right thing to do if one wants to understand the change that was made.
- acdha 11y ago
  > Since it doesn't use the normal ways to download extension, I would assume it does not use TLS connection If this was some random enterprise Java app, yes, that would be a reasonable assumption but you're talking about one of the most heavily audited codebases in existence, which has one of the best security teams in the world working on making TLS stronger and aggressively pinning certificates. Their track record would merit actually looking at the source rather than simply speculating.
- ChrisClark 11y ago
  But this isn't a 'secret' download. Google isn't trying to hide it at all, it's just a feature for the browser. So there is no reason to try to avoid problems associated with certificate errors.
rmc 11y ago
> If someone has MitM'd Google, it's gonna be a bad day for a lot of people. Didn't foreign government agencies already do that? (e.g. NSA?)
- Tobani 11y ago
  As far as we know only on insecure channels. Google had "private" pipes that they thought they didn't need to encrypt between datacenters and they didn't think they needed to encrypt that data. That was the MITM we knew about. I don't believe we know of them MITM'ing a cryptographically secure channel.
  - qwe123 11y ago
    >I don't believe we know of them MITM'ing a cryptographically secure channel. ... two years ago.
    - crush_fear_27 11y ago
      Can I have a good citation on that? I'm interested in knowing more about it. Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to snowden or something else.
      - qwe123 11y ago
        Although Bruce Schneier suspects new leakers behind recent reports, for now anyway most data about NSA capabilities that we have comes from Snowden documents. From this data it indeed follows that NSA didn't break cryptography two years ago. But it would be plain unprofessional of them not to raise the game by this time, especially given world's backslash against leaks. I'm not saying that NSA nowadays have means to break strong crypto. But they surely should have responded to the growing usage of crypto in some way. My money goes on increasingly employing insiders. Actually, I'd say the probability of three-letter-agencies planting backdoors after Snowden leaks have increased: developer community hasn't responded with radically new tools and techniques that would allow us to detect and root them out on mass-scale, at the same time journalists burned lots of NSA's precious toys while IT-companies rendered others useless by mass-deploying crypto and modernizing their infrastructure.
codys 11y ago
Arbitrary code controlled by a single organization (Google) is still arbitrary code.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  In then sense of "arbitrary code [...] if someone MitM the connection" it certainly is not.
  - codys 11y ago
    I missed that the parent comment added that conditional. I suppose I should have responded directly to them instead of under this comment then.

belorn 11y ago

Since it doesn't use the normal ways to download extension, I would assume it does not use TLS connection. Secret downloads has the problem to display certification errors and similar things to the users, so they would likely have to reimplemented quite a few code paths to make that work properly. https and tls is also not mentioned in either bug threads, which is a worrying sign. If it uses TLS, then the bug is less exploitable but does still violate security policy of the vetting process, signed code and license classification (closed-source blob). At minimum, it leaves anyone vulnerable to arbitrary code injection from Google.

simoncion 11y ago
It really looks like it uses the normal way to download extensions; the Web Store. I'd be more concerned that the only thing the patch seems to do is not activate the hotword extension. It seems to still download and install it. I mean, maybe I'm wrong here. I think that checking through https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/f269d3b548203e217e8c0080c2e22e7ae3efb51e/chrome/browser/search/hotword_service.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/f269d3b5482... for ENABLE_HOTWORDING is the right thing to do if one wants to understand the change that was made.
acdha 11y ago
> Since it doesn't use the normal ways to download extension, I would assume it does not use TLS connection If this was some random enterprise Java app, yes, that would be a reasonable assumption but you're talking about one of the most heavily audited codebases in existence, which has one of the best security teams in the world working on making TLS stronger and aggressively pinning certificates. Their track record would merit actually looking at the source rather than simply speculating.
ChrisClark 11y ago
But this isn't a 'secret' download. Google isn't trying to hide it at all, it's just a feature for the browser. So there is no reason to try to avoid problems associated with certificate errors.

rmc 11y ago

> If someone has MitM'd Google, it's gonna be a bad day for a lot of people. Didn't foreign government agencies already do that? (e.g. NSA?)

Tobani 11y ago
As far as we know only on insecure channels. Google had "private" pipes that they thought they didn't need to encrypt between datacenters and they didn't think they needed to encrypt that data. That was the MITM we knew about. I don't believe we know of them MITM'ing a cryptographically secure channel.
- qwe123 11y ago
  >I don't believe we know of them MITM'ing a cryptographically secure channel. ... two years ago.
  - crush_fear_27 11y ago
    Can I have a good citation on that? I'm interested in knowing more about it. Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to snowden or something else.
    - qwe123 11y ago
      Although Bruce Schneier suspects new leakers behind recent reports, for now anyway most data about NSA capabilities that we have comes from Snowden documents. From this data it indeed follows that NSA didn't break cryptography two years ago. But it would be plain unprofessional of them not to raise the game by this time, especially given world's backslash against leaks. I'm not saying that NSA nowadays have means to break strong crypto. But they surely should have responded to the growing usage of crypto in some way. My money goes on increasingly employing insiders. Actually, I'd say the probability of three-letter-agencies planting backdoors after Snowden leaks have increased: developer community hasn't responded with radically new tools and techniques that would allow us to detect and root them out on mass-scale, at the same time journalists burned lots of NSA's precious toys while IT-companies rendered others useless by mass-deploying crypto and modernizing their infrastructure.

codys 11y ago

Arbitrary code controlled by a single organization (Google) is still arbitrary code.

Dylan16807 11y ago
In then sense of "arbitrary code [...] if someone MitM the connection" it certainly is not.
- codys 11y ago
  I missed that the parent comment added that conditional. I suppose I should have responded directly to them instead of under this comment then.