WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete • Hacker News Board

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#101

Post by defen » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #26

moxie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to have replaced TLS/SSL between client and server with "Noise Pipes". WhatsApp was already using a custom protocol instead of TLS. We worked with them to transition over to Noise Pipes, which has some advantages over what they were doing before. Also, we've renamed Axolotl to Signal Protocol: https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-inside-and-out/

Thanks. As an aside, what's with Nietzsche? He seems to crop up in your screenshots quite frequently.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

(just a guess)

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#102

Post by moxie » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

robert_foss wrote: post #28

moxie: Does this mean that both Facebook and Signal servers are unable to see the plaintext? (I would assume so, but I would like to have it confirmed. From someone who actually knows what he's talking about.)

Correct. The only people who can read a message (or hear a voice call) are their intended recipients.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#103

Post by pfg » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

jamesdwilson wrote: post #95

zxexz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely verify the code without the source. It may often be much harder, but it is not un-verifiable. Please stop spreading misinformation like this. With all the wonderful reverse-engingeering tools, dissassemblers, debuggers, etc. available, and the numerous massive communities that use them, it seems pretty out-there that you could seriously think such a thing...

skype is encrypted and backdoored. how can you know the same isn't true of whatsapp?

Obfuscation would be a better term here. They've made it hard to reverse-engineer, but certainly not impossible.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#104

Post by envy2 » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:34 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #19

envy2 wrote: post #9

WhatsApp have published further details for users[1], as well as a technical whitepaper[2] explaining the implementation. There's also a blog post[3]. [1]: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/ [2]: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap... [3]: https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000618/End-to-end-encryption

That last blog post is clearly written by Jan Koum, as it talks about his past in the Soviet Union. But his name doesn't appear anywhere on the blog post and if you didn't know that odd bit of trivia, it'd be completely confusing - who the heck is talking? Some random employee? They need to add the name and job title of the blog posts author to the bottom.

It's now signed "Jan and Brian."

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#105

Post by koenigdavidmj » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #76

mike_hearn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the articles. It already says that those are encrypted, as well as voice calls. Apparently once everyone is upgraded, nothing will be unencrypted. Their white paper also describes the protocols used in quite a lot of detail.

I was asking because I have a notification today in one of my chats saying that e2ee was enabled. I didn't see the same notification in any group chats. Outside of that notification, it's not clear to me when things are encrypted. Maybe the next step is a more obvious indicator.

I just checked this with a group chat I'm in, and it said that it was not yet enabled because one person has not yet updated.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#106

Post by drudru11 » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

jamesdwilson wrote: post #51

absolutely no proof it is e2e encrypted without the source.

That is not absolute. The binaries are the absolute truth.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#107

Post by jamesdwilson » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #92

jamesdwilson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually in agreement with what you are saying about viewing the shipped binary, but source is a must also. ideally it is a reproducible build to verify the source created the binary.

You keep saying "source is a must" but you have yet to explain why that is the case.

fair enough! https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/possible_gove...

i think this is why source is a must. if a user compiled and installed the app themselves, and hypothetically had the entire stack above it be similarly open, then it would prevent the kind of attack mentioned.

do you agree?

if the source is closed anywhere in the stack, or pushed out in a walled garden as it is currently, then it allows the vulnerability mentioned.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#108

Post by swombat » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #87

pilif wrote: post #59

What the article fails to mention: 1) I would assume Facebook still gets unencrypted access to my address book for use with their shadow profiles 2) We have zero control over what key the client encrypts the messages for. Is it only the other peer's phone? Or is it for the peer's phone plus Facebook for analysis of the messages? Especially 2) is of some concern to me (against 1 I can't protect myself anyways because…

I think this is a reasonable analysis. I would refine it this way (examples are only for illustrative purposes): Tier 1 secure messengers: all possible tradeoffs in favor of security made; use for worst-case adversaries: - Signal/TextSecure - Pond - PGP† - OTR Tier 2 secure messengers: serious secure messaging protocols that make some tradeoffs in favor of adoption and usability; use for normal messages of low sensit…

> - Redacted to avoid flamewars.

Aww... shucks.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#109

Post by jamesdwilson » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #98

jamesdwilson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually in agreement with what you are saying about viewing the shipped binary, but source is a must also. ideally it is a reproducible build to verify the source created the binary.

You have made this point seven or eight times that I have seen and it is bordering on cultish repetition. It is definitely spam at the least. We heard you. You're wrong, you became personal in your wrongness and accused a guy who does security for a living of not understanding E2E (do you?), and it's probably time for you to take a break. I implore you to do so. Post haste.

i apologize. i'll try to be more sensible in my posts. it is just really frustrating sometimes.

Re: WhatsApp's Signal Protocol integration is now complete

#110

Post by swombat » Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

jamesdwilson wrote: post #107

tptacek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep saying "source is a must" but you have yet to explain why that is the case.

fair enough! https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/possible_gove... i think this is why source is a must. if a user compiled and installed the app themselves, and hypothetically had the entire stack above it be similarly open, then it would prevent the kind of attack mentioned. do you agree? if the source is closed anywhere in the stack, or pushed out in a walled garden as it is currently, then it allows the…

Just in case you don't know, tptacek is a world-class security/cryptography expert who happens to hang around and share his wisdom here. You appear to be assuming he's someone thinking one or more levels lower than you. I think it would be smarter for you to assume that he fully understands your argument but is thinking one or more levels higher than you.