Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the browser has no idea when you are supposed to be > operating on a secure channel (HTTPS) Agree about the sentiment, but there are some ways to help this. The server can for instance tell the client to always require https: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security Doesn't help if the client hasn't yet connected to the right server at least once, though.
Also, the browser can opt into HTTPS by using a plugin such as HTTPS Everywhere.
The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
171–180 of 191 posts
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that we have the man himself onboard - can I urge you to ask the WSJ to remove the comment at the start of the article about WhatsApp implementing your encryption schema? Unless I've missed something, there's absolutely no way for an end-user to determine if their messages are being encrypted (with whatsapp). Or how they're being encrypted for that matter. I feel like WhatsApp latched onto your groundwork (pote…
"Absolutely no way"? I'm sorry to be impolite about it, but that's a bit of an exaggeration: one could jailbreak their phone, pull the binary into their computer, decompile it, and inspect it for implementation structures that would be coherent with how the two or three most popular encryption algorithms are commonly implemented. The expertise to be able to accomplish it doesn't come cheap, but it's certainly in the…
There's a much easier way. Turn off your phone's cellular connection, but turn on wifi and connect it to a wifi network you control. Then just sniff the packets.
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#173Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Think of the childern" is a common refrain of the coward who values safety over freedom.
I wonder how many of the people on that think of the children side were either affected as kids, had children who had some awful experience, or are of close relation to someone who was or had kids who did. Because I could easily see something like an awful event happening to a child really warping a persons world view in a strong way. On the other hand, I wonder how many privacy advocates have never experienced anyth…
I know more than a few people who were abused as children, but none of them have become think-of-the-children anti-privacy advocates. It's probable that it's a selection effect, since the prior for my knowing someone who disagrees with my politics so deeply well enough to know their abuse history is low. But at the same time, I'd expect to run into at least one person by now.
I think that most people with first-hand experience around child abuse are probably not anti-privacy advocates. At that level it becomes clear that the real problems are social conventions that adults can exploit (family and professional relationships with defined subordinate roles for children), enabling them to commit abuse. Having secure communications doesn't help with this much. In fact, if a child thought they could tell someone about abuse without their abuser knowing, it might be helpful.
I think that the anti-privacy activists are actually people who are rather far away from the societal evils they claim to oppose privacy to protect against. The people who have opinions about the NSA reading email or encrypted messaging tend not to be personally affected by social instability from terrorism, or the drug war, just by basic socioeconomics. Child molestation is probably a similar, far-off evil. It's enough for these people that these systems could hide evildoing, and because of that they clearly need to be compromised so that the state and legitimate community forces can hunt evildoers. I think the real motive is simply a naive belief in the goodwill of those community forces.
This in turn can be explained by a naive moral system, where it is moral to obey rules. This is the 3rd or 4th level of the Kohlberg moral development scale, and the level Kohlberg conjectured most people remain at during their lives. Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_o...
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#175I get a lot of credit for the stuff that Open Whisper Systems does, but it's not all me by a long shot. Trevor Perrin, Frederic Jacobs, Christine Corbett, Tyler Reinhard, Lilia Kai, Jake McGinty, and Rhodey Orbits are the crew that really made all this work happen.
>A few years ago, Matthew Green, a cryptographer and professor at Johns Hopkins University, unleashed his students on Mr. Marlinspike’s code. To Prof. Green’s surprise, they didn’t find any errors. He compared the experience to working with a home contractor who made “every single corner perfectly squared.”
...happen?
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#176I tried installing TextSecure recently but it wouldn't work without the Google Play services. I hadn't herd of their new app Signal. Has anyone tried it? I'm really interested in hearing anyone's experience using it. BTW, I ended up installing Telegram ...and it may be mere co-incidence, but I started noticing some weird things happening that I've never seen before. I connect to the internet exclusively via tethering…
Telegram isn't secure. There's been no public audit of their "secure" code and most messages aren't even sent via the secure channel unless you expressly tell it to do so. It has a pretty UI though, so most people seem to think it's great.
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will an I/O audit of the network interface will detect this?
No. How do you propose that it would?
And then, depending on how silly the eavesdropping is, repeating the same message might cause the same encrypted payload to be transmitted?
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
While having Signal is great, one thing I don't like is the use of phone numbers as identifiers. Why can't we have the option of using a random string?
secure transmission of texts is the goal, not providing anonymity of sender and receiver.
Re: The Coder Who Encrypted Your Texts
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Think of the childern" is a common refrain of the coward who values safety over freedom.
I wonder how many of the people on that think of the children side were either affected as kids, had children who had some awful experience, or are of close relation to someone who was or had kids who did. Because I could easily see something like an awful event happening to a child really warping a persons world view in a strong way. On the other hand, I wonder how many privacy advocates have never experienced anyth…