Live data from Hacker News

Email cannot be encrypted at rest

migadu.com

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#13
> Some other providers automatically encrypt messages as they arrive using users’ public keys. That sounds exciting but in practice that means you cannot access your messages using the webmail unless you pasted your private key into a browser, and have it handled by script and a myriad of third party code. Ouch.

That sounds more like an E2E encrypted setup where the email is encrypted by the sender before sending it, and the webmail provider stores a passphrase-protected copy of the private key.

In any case, I'm not sure why "third party code" is the problem here. Would they prefer that webmail providers write their own crypto code? Does that include TLS libraries?

Perhaps they mean "code hosted on third party sites", in which case the reaction should be "Why does your site pull in code from third party hosts (and why don't you use Subresource Integrity hashes)?".

That leaves just one possible legitimate complaint, which is that the webmail server can (selectively) serve malicious JavaScript to users. While that risk is about comparable to the risk of running a native client that periodically checks for updates and automatically installs them, I think that the malicious webapp scenario can be mitigated by something like the clever Bookmarklet Bootstrap trick[0]. That has some usability drawbacks, but those might be fixed by something like Hashlink[1].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17776456

[1] https://github.com/w3c-ccg/hashlink

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#14
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is throwing off how we’re reading the article. It’s really about why they, an email provider, can’t meaningfully encrypt email at rest. FTA: >If you are interested in real encryption, please use end-to-end encryption tools such as GPG or fetch locally all your messages periodically and encrypt them yourself. I would say their standard for being ‘encrypted at rest’ is including a requirement that they are un…

yeah that gets clear when they talk about their certified physical security: there is a strong assumption that drives can not be stolen and will be destroyed at their EOL. Such assumptions often don't hold. Encryption and physical protection are not redundant, they are defense in depth. I agree with the GPG part and that a mail provider can not reasonably create something similar, however they have a weird understand…

In addition to protecting against losing hard drives, 'encryption at rest' (as applied in e.g. card industry) can also protect the data from an attacker who gets full access to the database through e.g. a SQL injection, if properly implemented.

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#16
post #7
post #2

> at rest So we're talking about after it's received and processed by a server. > Email is built on top of plain text protocols and messages flow in plain text. If you encrypt, you cannot scan for spam or viruses... But you can? Just scan and process before encrypting. > ...index messages for searching This indeed is a problem. Encrypting emails individually makes search difficult. Why not just encrypt entire hard dr…

The title is throwing off how we’re reading the article. It’s really about why they, an email provider, can’t meaningfully encrypt email at rest. FTA: >If you are interested in real encryption, please use end-to-end encryption tools such as GPG or fetch locally all your messages periodically and encrypt them yourself. I would say their standard for being ‘encrypted at rest’ is including a requirement that they are un…

> please use end-to-end encryption tools such as GPG or fetch locally all your messages periodically and encrypt them yourself

This is good advice but it just isn't going to happen in practice unless gmail makes it the default for everyone. WhatsApp added support for the Signal protocol and made it the default for all users, now the whole world is communicating with end-to-end encryption.

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#17
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can? Just scan and process before encrypting. You can't. End-to-end encryption for email means the messages are encrypted by the sending client and decrypted by the receiving client. The server has no chance to scan anything because it cannot decrypt the messages.

End-to-end encryption and encryption at rest are two very different things.

Not clear if the author is referring specifically to mail services like gmail here. Full disk encryption would indeed encrypt my email at rest (assuming I'm syncing mail locally on my laptop with FDS turned on).

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#19
paper I had an idea for that was mostly done by an undergrad (now a professor)

https://www.acsac.org/2007/papers/161.pdf

---

The increasing centralization of networked services places users' data at considerable risk. For example, many users store their email on remote servers rather than on their own client machine. Doing so allows users to gain the benefit of regular backups and remote access, but it also places a great deal of trust in the server. Since most email is stored in plaintext, a compromise of the server also implies the loss of confidentiality and integrity of the email stored therein. Although users could employ an encryption scheme ( e.g., PGP), such measures are not widely adopted, require action on behalf of the sender, and only provide partial protection (the email headers remain in the clear).

We propose an alternative solution that begins with the server encrypting newly arriving email, including the headers, body, and attachments, using a public-key encryption standard. Unfortunately, this approach also prevents users from remotely searching their email. To solve this problem, we present Secure Searchable Automated Remote Email Storage (SSARES), a novel system that offers a practical approach to securing remotely stored email while allowing privacy preserving searching. SSARES uses a combination of Identity Based Encryption and Bloom Filters, revealing little information about search keywords and queries. SSARES remains largely transparent to both the email sender and recipient. We present an evaluation of our system based on our preliminary prototype, and identify areas for future improvement.

---

Re: Email cannot be encrypted at rest

#20
post #2

> at rest So we're talking about after it's received and processed by a server. > Email is built on top of plain text protocols and messages flow in plain text. If you encrypt, you cannot scan for spam or viruses... But you can? Just scan and process before encrypting. > ...index messages for searching This indeed is a problem. Encrypting emails individually makes search difficult. Why not just encrypt entire hard dr…

Couldn't the indexing issue be solved by only having the client/user do the indexing while e-mails are stored encrypted on the server? Ideally on an encrypted device which will keep/maintain the indexing.

Shifting the burden of indexing e-mail (and decrypting/encrypting the at rest) on the client willing to achieve this?

Edit:

The webmail/imap/pop provider would only have to receive an e-mail and use a client provide public key to encrypt the mail and let it rest.

The webmail client could (in browser) or through their app do the decryption/indexing locally. Could be done with an extension.

Post reply on HN