lvh

86 ms·

931.
by lvh 8y ago
Are you thinking Vanadium or some other spec?
932.
by lvh 8y ago
I flubbed the link to jackhammer questions last night: http://bash.org/?866112
933.
by lvh 8y ago
I’m not ‘tptacek but I am a Latacora principal. It is partially. The problem with the question of what you should use instead of JWT is that it presupposes a usually-wrong assumption that you actually want something of the same shape as JWT
934.
by lvh 8y ago
So, clearly you can't use the real Java runtime because it expects to load an endpoint from a jar, but I wonder what the equivalent Python runtime version would look like. Prior to explicit Go support, people used the Python runtime as
935.
by lvh 8y ago
The RPC mechanism uses Gob, not something like gRPC, so first you’d have to write a Gob parser. It’s not clear to me that that’s better.
936.
by lvh 8y ago
That makes sense even if you assume the NSA is adhering to its mission: if you don't publicly disclose the existence of differential cryptanalysis and the enemy hasn't figured it out the enemy may standardize on a weak cipher. The
937.
by lvh 8y ago
Teleport is great -- it's a ton better than manually managing SSH keys to a bunch of hosts.
938.
by lvh 8y ago
Can you write down in pseudocode exactly what you're suggesting? As in db.write(sha256(email)) or whatever.
939.
by lvh 8y ago
I mean, I'm me, so I want to write Clojure. I haven't tried ClojureScript -> clasp to see if I can use ClojureScript. Does Google Apps Script document exactly what the runtime is? It looks like Rhino from some of the failure mo
940.
by lvh 8y ago
I can't provide details re: where/when/who of course, but all of these are functionally equivalent to things that have happened. Reality tends to be a bit messier than these scenarios but not in a way that fundamentally chang
941.
by lvh 8y ago
FWIW I haven't found a way to get access to unshared files until after you remove access from someone. The Admin SDK only provides usage reports. The Drive SDK allows you to get files et cetera, but only for the current user (!) -- so
942.
by lvh 8y ago
Cool! Can you elaborate on what easier to manage and more secure might look like?
943.
by lvh 8y ago
I wrote this, underlying work is collaboration with the other Latacora folks, happy to answer questions :)
944.
by lvh 8y ago
GAM is awesome for this. We've also had good luck with Google Apps Scripts. The advantage is that it makes it marginally easier to set up credentials: it does so behind the scenes so you never have creds with admin permissions hit disk
945.
by lvh 8y ago
What? A PRF having a secret key is not “security by obscurity.” I am documenting how the entire process works and where the security properties come from.
946.
by lvh 8y ago
You did say hash function. Would you mind jotting down that proof?
947.
by lvh 8y ago
Mostly because they'd add a feature on a non-free platform (macOS) that is otherwise missing from a free platform. Notably, color emoji have worked fine forever on macOS, and were then _intentionally broken_ (when I say broken I mean t
948.
by lvh 8y ago
A Bloom filter is an interesting approach, but the problem is that the attacker and you need the same property: to know if an email is in the set. If you could tell set membership with (effectively) perfect accuracy the Bloom filter may imp
949.
by lvh 8y ago
That's not provably the case at all. We can absolutely do better, for reasons the root of this thread raises. If that were true, why isn't SHA256 the state of the art in password storage? Reason: the input space is small enough to
950.
by lvh 8y ago
I posted a comment with an alternative construction plus rationale: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17153329
951.
by lvh 8y ago
You're right, but there are safer constructions to do this. Maybe this kind of knowledge will get more popular now that GDPR is mandating it :) Active concern for me: GDPR will promote a bunch more homegrown looks-fine-but-actually-bus
952.
by lvh 8y ago
Yes. They don't quite define how the hash works in the post, but assuming it's something like SHA256(email), that's easy to enumerate. There are ways to do this better. Let's say that it's 1 party and you're tr
953.
by lvh 8y ago
Yeah, I think we’re in violent agreement. (I worked at one of the impacted organizations during Project Aurora.) Having a VPN is a pretty great control for the vast majority of organizations that don’t have the operational maturity to pull
954.
by lvh 8y ago
Saying that VPN is an incomplete control is not the same thing as saying VPNs are pointless. And the real argument (VPNs used as an excuse to not secure hosts) is even weaker. It’s often true! But that doesn’t mean a VPN isn’t an entirely r
955.
by lvh 8y ago
(Since GP asked me specifically: I completely agree with Jason here.)
956.
by lvh 8y ago
Have you tried both? Particularly on bad hotel WiFi and roaming, wireguard perf is not comparable to SSH proxying.
957.
by lvh 8y ago
Yes: OpenVPN was one of the most robust and easy to set up protocols. Because the alternative was IPSec. Now we have wireguard, and it’s better on basically every metric. 100% of OpenVPNs we have seen deployed at startups had BFCBC as the d
958.
by lvh 8y ago
Sorry, I meant scale over number of boxes and services, not so much scale over time. Other people in this thread have given some rationale, but: perf, better baseline crypto (you always know what you’re getting), it’s a real network connect
959.
by lvh 8y ago
Would you care to rebut the arguments the blog post puts forth, such as argue that wireguard is actually harder to configure than IPSec or that the protocol is actually less trustworthy? IPsec’s design era, implementation size... really not
960.
by lvh 8y ago
It does give extensive rationale: not only is it easy to configure (much easier than OpenVPN, let alone anything IPsec), the trusted codebase is tiny, and the cryptographic protocol is significantly more trustworthy. Respectfully: I suggest

More ›