Live data from Hacker News

Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

signal.org

351–360 of 519 posts

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#351
post #157

They're spoofing identity of non-consenting parties. The cause is noble, but it isn't what the headline would imply. Amazon isn't saying "You can't host encrypted services on our platform", they are saying "You can't use TLS and load balancing hacks to pretend to be us in oppresive countries". And >The idea behind domain fronting was that to block a single site, you’d have to block the rest of the internet as well. I…

>You can't use TLS and load balancing hacks to pretend to be us in oppresive countries They're not pretending to be Amazon, they're pretending to initiate a connection to an Amazon domain. The "conversation" goes like so: Clear text request: "Hello, I would like to speak TLS with souq.com" Clear text response: "Why yes, let us do that with these parameters" Encrypted request: "Please give me the page for signal.org/a…

They're not pretending to be Amazon, but they are making their client pretend to talk to an Amazon host, and use the SSL keys of an Amazon-owned host rather than their own.

It's more like this:

Clear text request: "Hello, I would like to speak TLS with host souq.com and encrypt my connection with a key signed by souq.com"

Clear text response: "Why yes, let us do that with these parameters"

Encrypted request: "Actually I meant host signal.org, but please route my request anyway since both hosts are being routed by this service. Please ignore the fact that my symmetric key for this connection was encrypted and transmitted using the keypair of souq.com."

----

This is similar to buying a train ticket to a nearby stop, using it to get on the train, then getting off at a different stop because you know they won't check your ticket again.

Google and Amazon are now adding an additional ticket check.

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the counterexample that you intend. The prohibition is where this bribery is illegal in the foreign countries, even if it happens to be commonplace. Bribery is never "policy", else it would be called something else (as in the U.S., where we call it "campaign contributions").

It applies even when bribery is legal and does not distinguish whether bribery is legal or illegal.

After reading the linked Wikipedia page, if it's accurate then you seem to be correct. The act prohibits influencing foreign officials by giving them things of value, and doesn't mention whether that would be illegal in the foreign country. So it would seem that a U.S. corporation would be in violation of this law for doing in a foreign land what they routinely do within the U.S. (essentially all large U.S. businesses make, or aggregate, "campaign contributions" with the intent to influence lawmakers and other elected officials).

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#353

Sorry, I'm not on board with using an Amazon owned domain for this. That's got the potential to get Amazon itself blacklisted in some places, so they're absolutely not going to be okay with it.

It also forces the poor domain owner who is being fronted, in this case SOUQ.COM, to absorb a huge Route 53 bill for all of the DNS queries that are originating from Signal users. Not fair at all.

Souq.com is owned by amazon

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the entire point of domain fronting and collateral freedom: to make censorship as expensive as possible for oppresive regimes.

So if you're throwing grenades and Molotov cocktails over a sovereign border, stand inside a crowd of children so they have to shoot them, too. Am I understanding you correctly?

Don't you think that's a needlessly offensive analogy? Signal is not using children to shield themselves from rifle fire.

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#355
post #248

Can't we just fix TLS to not have this plaintext negotiation component? It clearly isn't necessary, or domain "fronting" couldn't even work.

It is still nessecary , it only works because both domains are serviced by the same CDN servers which ignores the plain text version once the packet reaches them.

If the plain text component is not there none of the intermediary parties will know where to route the packet as they cannot decrypt the header.

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#356
post #135

Could they use http instead, with random (generated) domains? And then encrypt the payload? For extra credit encrypt the payload as html tags (i.e. build valid html where the tags correspond to the bytes in the payload.)

All of the domains still would need to point to cloudfront. Only CF was ignoring the outer header, which aws is changing it and this hack won't work in the future

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, it would certainly not be in shareholder's financial interest for amazon to take this stance. For the record, U.S. politicians have voted on sanctions on Russia for cyber crimes and brought representatives to the UN raising the issue of their human rights records.

> For the record, U.S. politicians have voted on sanctions on Russia Indeed, the US nearly destroyed Russia's largest aluminum company - Rusal - recently in a sanctions move against an oligarch close to Putin (Oleg Deripaska, who owns the majority of Rusal). The best way to deal with oppressive regimes, is generally to go through powerful political bodies/groups, whether the UN, G7, or US Congress. The impact a compa…

> oligarch close to Putin (Oleg Deripaska ...)

For the record, Deripaska is no friend of Putin, who forced him to start paying tax and stay out of politics. Look at how Putin humiliated him several years ago during an industrial dispute, when Putin took the side of workers against Deripaska.

[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XfbWnDXCx8

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#358
I posted on the signal community forums in significantly more detail (e.g. how to configure nginx exactly with test connections), but it's relatively easy to use AWS infrastructure only for pass through and configure nginx to accept specific public SNI headers while connecting to domains you are authoritative for (e.g. google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, yandex.ru). You can do this by using the ssl_preread nginx module to proxy based on the SNI header (e.g. amazon.com -> 127.0.0.1:444, google.com -> 127.0.0.1:445, yahoo.com -> 127.0.0.1:446). This effectively means that you are not having AWS or GAE do anything other than directly proxy encrypted content, which I would argue is an important distinction.

The downside is that no one is providing the DNS redirect in an encrypted transaction.

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#359
Why is fully decentralized option like WebRTC not considered ?, there is no real need for message apps to be centralized especially on mobile.

Loss of message queuing can be mitigated easily when both end points are more or less always running and messages sent only when both parties are on online.

TURN relays could still be a problem and potential censorship blocks. However the protocol is standard it is not very difficult to setup one even behind NAT. You could even bundle lightweight version with app and make all the clients relays too making it very hard to crackdown on

Re: Amazon threatens to suspend Signal's AWS account over censorship circumvention

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mutual need should be considering the freedom of communication that everyone should have as a human right. Like a lot of things when you think of it purely in terms of dollars you end up with an opressive authoritarian system like in China.

That doesn't make sense. Lots of places think in terms of dollars, in fact the West/capitalism is all about it, and yet we don't have the same issues.

The parent poster might take issue with the idea of capitalism not implicitly meaning oppression. ;)
Post reply on HN