Live data from Hacker News

Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

popsci.com

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: what exactly is it that the NSA learns from the GCM messages that they can't learn from the message traffic itself? I'm beginning to suspect the answer is "nothing", and that this whole thread is really just a superstitious allergy to GCM.

Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages, not what the NSA can get from GCM messages. And even though your question is off-topic, I already answered it above. Why would you accuse someone of being allergic to a technology when they are simply answering questions about it? If you disagree with the actual topic of discussion - that Google (not the NSA)…

> Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages

The parent poster of the post you initially replied to asserted that Signal was "giving NSA the only thing what they want: metadata from Google", so I guess that's where tptacek is coming from.

On a side note, Google can't actually know the message sizes because GCM is used without a payload.

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages, not what the NSA can get from GCM messages. And even though your question is off-topic, I already answered it above. Why would you accuse someone of being allergic to a technology when they are simply answering questions about it? If you disagree with the actual topic of discussion - that Google (not the NSA)…

> Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages The parent poster of the post you initially replied to asserted that Signal was "giving NSA the only thing what they want: metadata from Google", so I guess that's where tptacek is coming from. On a side note, Google can't actually know the message sizes because GCM is used without a payload.

Yes, but they're right: we started talking past each other several comments ago. Sorry!

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is your assumption that the perceived threat is a 'nation-state'... ... That was the opening sentence of my paragraph that demonstrated that there is no such thing as "guaranteed security". If you think that there is such a thing, then you're going to be confused about many things when you think about security matters. To the rest of your comment: You need to keep things in perspective. [0] * On Windows, Mac, an…

At issue further up the thread was whether insisting on using Google Play to distribute Signal for security reasons was sound logic, right? Forgive me if I missed the point but I thought that's what we were debating. That's why I provided the specific example above which showed malware distributed via the Google Play store. this advanced my position that an app insisting on distribution via Google Play store exclusiv…

> The closest you came was saying that "Actual "take over your computer" malware doesn't exist in either the Play Store or the App Store." but this is directly contradicted by this story from just yesterday: http://www.slashgear.com/viking-horde-malware-uses-google-pl.... (plenty of other sites covering this too)

That link says these two things:

> There's a new piece of malware in the wild, and it's turning phones and tablets alike into a part of a large botnet.

This is use of both the ability to execute software within Android's sandbox along with the ability to transfer data using HTTP/HTTPS to send data on the Internet. That's what a botnet is.

> While unrooted devices are susceptible to the actions listed above, rooted devices are at a greater risk. On these devices, additional software is installed that allows it to execute any code remotely. What's more, it uses your root access privileges to make it difficult, if not impossible to manually remove the malware.

This doesn't affect anyone who's using Android as either distributed by Google, or by anyone who's distributing an Android-branded phone.

That is to say, unless you purposely go very far out of your way to install custom system software that deliberately weakens critical Android security features -thus putting your Android device pretty squarely in the realm of PC-level security-, then there is no software in the Play Store that will take over your Android device.

Pointing to that and claiming that it's evidence of a failure of the Play Store is like winding your seatbelt tightly around your neck (rather than securing the buckle to its clasp), driving at highway speeds straight into a bridge support, and then blaming the seatbelt when your head pops off of your neck. :)

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#125
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah me too, I'm using Conversations[0] on Android and it's pretty awesome actually. Pretty actively developed with a smooth UI and no Play services or phone number requirement. Running a really light prosody[1] instance on my server to host my own XMPP connection, although since it's all E2E, I could have used a public one. [0] https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=eu.siacs.convers... [1] https://prosody.im/

I've run this, and I also found it easy to set up and use. However, my understanding is that you only get end-to-end encryption with OTR, and that OTR can only be used with both parties online at the same time. Am I mistaken about this?

I think offline encryption works fine if your XMPP server implementes XEP-0198[0]. Prosody doesn't out of the box, but there's a community plugin available[1] for it. The plugins are really easy to install if you're running prosody already, if you're not then ask your XMPP name host. Stream management requires client and server to support this, which Conversations does so I'd assume your server is lacking.

If you're in an OTR converation already, I think the server would just get encrypted garbage, hold it until the other party comes on the network and then pass it off and their client would decrypt it. I haven't read the protocol though TBH.

[0] https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html [1] https://modules.prosody.im/mod_smacks.html

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're missing some information here. The supplied link says that the applications have been renamed due to legal threats. This seems completely reasonable to me. The names of the apps are trademarks and for a security product, who builds it is important to the integrity of the mark. I'm trying to remember how Android works, but I seem to recall that you need to sign the packages differently on Play and Fdroid…

> He decided not to. That's completely his right. He doesn't go into a lot of detail about why he has decided this, but it's completely up to him. He doesn't like how F-Droid uses centralized signing keys which are stored online: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127#...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't he host a private repository like the Guardian Project does with his own binary signed with his own key? People would have to manually add the repo, but I believe F-droid lets you do that. Fdroid just wants everything they build to be signed with their key, which to me makes sense. The Pale Moon dev had the same or similar reservations last I checked, but I heard nothing about a private repo.

It would be more work for him of course, maintaining a repo and pushing updates to two locations, but I don't think it would be too much extra work and it sounds like a lot of people are looking for a non-GP repo. Pushing to your own server is easier than updating in an app market anyday.

At the end of the day, he can of course spend his time how he wants, I just think there's a loud if not large group that would like a Google Play Services-less Signal.

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages, not what the NSA can get from GCM messages. And even though your question is off-topic, I already answered it above. Why would you accuse someone of being allergic to a technology when they are simply answering questions about it? If you disagree with the actual topic of discussion - that Google (not the NSA)…

> Are you in the right thread? The discussion here is about what information Google can get from GCM messages The parent poster of the post you initially replied to asserted that Signal was "giving NSA the only thing what they want: metadata from Google", so I guess that's where tptacek is coming from. On a side note, Google can't actually know the message sizes because GCM is used without a payload.

If tptacek wanted to reply to the NSA comment, that's fine, but that's not what happened.

Your side note also applies to that comment, but not mine, so I think it belongs there, not here.

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#128
post #42
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that, at that point, Moxie couldn't confirm that the uploaded binary was the same one as packaged by their official release. Secure communication protocols are irrelevant if the client which you are communicating on is compromised.

What you have described is pretty much an opposite of how F-droid works. One can't just take binary (whether official or compromised) and upload it there. [1] Instead, to publish an app there, you need to provide source code repository [2], and their build farm would build it, sort-of [3] providing guarantee that source code you can inspect is the same one you got running on your phone. [1] There are exceptions, i.e.…

The problem is that there is no insight into what is going on in the f-droid build farm. Without reproducible builds, all bets are off.

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#129
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read this blog post multiple times over the past few months and I wish I knew about it before I went to college. His career advice has so much clarity that I can't find elsewhere (so far). Thanks for sharing the link. I'm about to do a career switch and reading this again is certainly reassuring. He is right. We are what we do for a living. I find his work very inspirational and I hope I'll be able to personally…

If you don't mind me asking, what career are you switching from and to? I'm about to graduate but I'm not looking forward to any of my default career options. I'd be curious to hear about your experience and plans.

I'm about to graduate from medical school in a few months. Once I get my medical degree, I'm going for an undergraduate degree in Computer Science. I've always wanted to do computer science since high school but I equally wanted to become a doctor. At one point I decided being a doctor was more important. I valued autonomy highly and I figured nothing is better than the freedom to operate my own small private practice in the future. I didn't want to end up being employed as a programmer and I expected that being a freelancer is no where near as stable in terms of job prospects as being a doctor, especially on the long run. Add to that the fact that I was fascinated by how the human body works for the same reasons I was fascinated with computers. I think any hacker-minded person would. I wanted to know the ins and outs of the human body. I wanted to know how it breaks, and how to fix it. Also, to be honest, I was very tempted with the extra income that comes with medical practice, but autonomy was ultimately the primary motive.

6 Years later, here I am, graduating with a decent GPA but having 0% interest in pursuing clinical practice, although i have performed very well clinically and in terms of my medical knowledge. I simply realized that the practice of medicine (specifically diagnostics and treatment decisions) is nothing but a classification problem. We are literally trained to memorize 'algorithms' (flow charts) for diagnosing and managing hundreds of different illnesses. That's about it really. It boils down to asking a standard set of questions (the patient's history), examining the patient, and trying to guess the diagnosis. Often, lab tests are needed (you order them based on the flow chart you memorized for the presenting symptoms). Once they're available, the diagnosis is usually clear, or further testing and imaging is required, and the cycle continues. Even for the complicated medical issues, this whole process can be represented by a simple flowchart that easily fits on an A4 sheet). The majority of modern day work done by doctors can (and will) be automated in the near future. The biggest hurdle was never the technology; it's the laws and regulations. I've seen papers published in the 80s where AI bested human doctors in diagnosing many diseases, and recently I've seen more impressive results in radiology and pathology diagnostics, where the diagnosis purely depends on vision, which is a very complicated problem when you try to solve it with computers. The results are very promising and some papers have shown results where human pathologists and radiologists were outperformed by computer vision.

Humans are obviously still needed to deal with patients. It takes some clinical skill to know how to extract information from patients, how to examine them, and how to look for clues, but that does not strictly require a doctor to be done properly. In fact, most of our medical training, even in residency, is concerned with learning more and more 'algorithms', guidelines, and staying up to date with the latest medical evidence.

Computers won't replace doctors in surgical specialties, but they certainly will replace primary care physicians, as well as doctors in other fields like internal medicine (including its subspecialties like cardiology, Pulmonology, etc), emergency medicine, oncology, and others. These fields purely depend on memorizing and recalling flow charts of diagnosis and management. Humans are fallible when it comes to memory and recall, computers are much much less fallible in these cases, and virtually infallible in some cases (100% diagnostic sensitivity and specificity was reported in some studies, which is impossible to achieve by humans)

By the time I realized what I mentioned above, I was already close to finishing med school. I decided to graduate first then see what I wanted to do next. I no longer saw any inherent joy or value in being a doctor. There is no room for trying to be creative, smart, or efficient. You just have to follow the official guidelines and policies, and hope you don't get sued when you, inevitably, make a mistake. I see no meaning in a career like that.

I love coding and I love learning CS in my free time so my decision for what to do next was easy. There are some interesting studies utilizing AI for diagnosing cancer metastasis on CT scans using computer vision, and that's an example of a topic I might be interested in. I don't necessarily want to do medically related research all the time though. All I want to do is to be a software engineer working on very interesting projects. Even the most mundane coding projects are easily 10x more mentally stimulating than clinical work in my opinion.

In retrospect, I have no regrets. I know a lot about how my body works and I leanred a lot from dealing with hundreds of patients over the years. I also learned a lot about who I am and what I really want, and to me, this knowledge is invaluable. I also realized how much I appreciated computer science.

I guess that's enough rambling. Apologies for the late and long reply. I hope you found it useful, and I wish you the best of luck in your future career ;)

Re: Moxie Marlinspike Makes Encryption for Everyone

#130
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He decided not to. That's completely his right. He doesn't go into a lot of detail about why he has decided this, but it's completely up to him. He doesn't like how F-Droid uses centralized signing keys which are stored online: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127#...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't he host a private repository like the Guardian Project does with his own binary signed with his own key? People would have to manually add the repo, but I believe F-droid lets you do that. Fdroid just wants everything they build to be signed with their key, which to me makes sense. The Pale Moon dev had the same or similar reservations last I checked, but I heard nothing about a…

Unless I'm mistaken, he's already done that. He just had to rename it to something else. So AFAICT there is nothing to see here. As you say, F-Droid already does that with several packages (and even renames them when requested).

Some people are clearly angry, but it seems that this is yet another case where people are angry because they don't understand the GPL or don't understand the situation (or both).

Post reply on HN