Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 492 posts

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#471

Post by pksebben »

hrishi wrote: post #372
eloisius wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a false equivocation. Private citizens having “nothing to hide” in their personal lives is disimilar to public officials having nothing to hide in relation to their official duties. Blackmail related to embarrassing sexual proclivities or anything like that is unfortunate, but kindly asking politicians to be transparent isn’t a realistic answer. Of course they will use official channels and be transparent abou…

I think you're pointing out the problem already. Email and associated protocols apply to everyone, public-individual or private. The same technology works whether you're a politician or an ex-girlfriend. I also agree with your parent, if there is something we need politicians to do, it needs to be a law that makes explicit what the intended outcome is, rather than hold up an unintended consequence of a protocol featu…

we have been trying to do things this way for years. The deteriorating condition of our democracy and electorate would suggest that we need a different approach

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#472

Post by hamburglar »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #462
hamburglar wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that we currently have that "nothing" and are just trying to be explicit about it.

> I'd argue that we currently have that "nothing" and are just trying to be explicit about it. If you want concrete examples of how the partial non-repudiation property provided by DKIM is not "nothing", you have to look no further than the examples provided in OP.

And yet all of those examples go poof very, very easily, based on something that's not in your control. So yeah, I think they're nothing.

Let me give you a scenario to consider. At my old company, there was a mail server that would DKIM-sign everything that was passed through it. Anybody who wanted to on the internal network could write an email with tampered headers (say, backdated, or "From:" someone else) and send it through this server. This was acceptable because the SOLE PURPOSE of this signing was improving SMTP deliverability. It tells other mail servers "yes, this SMTP payload actually originated from this company. Please do not treat it as spam." So given one of these signed messages, what can you argue about the contents? Nothing, other than "these did not come from a random spammer posing as this company."

You run risks when you assume a signature means something that the signer does not actually intend it to mean.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#473

Post by baobabKoodaa »

shinigami wrote: post #468
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You really think that laypersons have any idea of what DKIM is? The layperson doesn't have to understand the intricacies of email protocols, it's enough that they consider email to be non-repudiable . This is why a copy of an email typically suffices as "proof" of a contract. If you successfully run a campaign to make email repudiable, then laypersons will no longer consider email to be non-repudiable, and emails n…

> The layperson doesn't have to understand the intricacies of email protocols, it's enough that they consider email to be non-repudiable. They consider it non-repudiable not because of DKIM, it's just a common misconception. People believed that before DKIM. They will still believe it if Google discloses its DKIM keys. They totally should not believe it, though. > So if I can't give the exact number of times that DKI…

We're discussing a campaign whose goal is to increase the deniability of email. When you say things like "they will still believe [email is non-repudiable] if Google discloses its DKIM keys", you're essentially saying that this campaign will not be successful in its ultimate goal - that even if the campaign manages to get Google to periodically rotate and publish their DKIM keys, it will not achieve the desired effect of increasing the deniability of email. So, you're saying that this campaign is a fool's errand?

I don't have a strong opinion on the chances of success that this campaign has. What I am saying is that if the campaign was successful in increasing the repudiability of email, that would make it easier for people to repudiate emails that they've sent, and that would be a bad thing in the context of resolving disputes. Do you agree?

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#474

Post by hashtagmarkup »

mthoms wrote: post #469
hashtagmarkup wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A victim used to be able to prove they didn't send a message. A leaker used to be able to prove someone did send a message. Those evidentiary options no longer exist. They were destroyed when the DKIM keys were made public. You're not very bright. Concede that.

I'll ask again. WHO is guilty of "destroying evidence" in that case? Unless you can articulate that, you have no argument whatsoever that a criminal act has occurred. Period. End of discussion. >You're not very bright. Concede that. At least I understand that for a crime to be committed there has to be an entity (organization or person) who committed it. That only requires a grade school level of legal understanding.…

THE PEOPLE WHO RELEASED THE DKIM KEYS WOULD BE GUILTY, YOU COMPLETE DOLT.

I didn't claim a crime was committed... you did, you complete dolt.

Evidence doesn't imply a crime... you complete dolt.

If someone peed in a cup to get tested for evidence of something, and someone else peed in the same cup... that evidence was destroyed. It can no longer be tested to form any conclusions. The potential for evidence was destroyed. no crime was committed.

You might be the least bright person on earth.

You complete dolt.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#475

Post by dang »

hashtagmarkup wrote: post #474
mthoms wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll ask again. WHO is guilty of "destroying evidence" in that case? Unless you can articulate that, you have no argument whatsoever that a criminal act has occurred. Period. End of discussion. >You're not very bright. Concede that. At least I understand that for a crime to be committed there has to be an entity (organization or person) who committed it. That only requires a grade school level of legal understanding.…

THE PEOPLE WHO RELEASED THE DKIM KEYS WOULD BE GUILTY, YOU COMPLETE DOLT. I didn't claim a crime was committed... you did, you complete dolt. Evidence doesn't imply a crime... you complete dolt. If someone peed in a cup to get tested for evidence of something, and someone else peed in the same cup... that evidence was destroyed. It can no longer be tested to form any conclusions. The potential for evidence was destro…

Yikes! Posting like this (and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743) will get you banned on HN. We're trying for the other end of the swimming pool here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful.

Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25118713 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25067189 also break the site guidelines quite badly.

Would you mind taking a look at this explanation I posted a couple days ago? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25130956 It is my attempt to explain why we don't want users to flame each other here, even when the other person is ignorant or wrong. The reason may be different than you think, in which case perhaps it will have some persuasive power for you. I hope so anyhow.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#476

Post by hashtagmarkup »

dang wrote: post #475
hashtagmarkup wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THE PEOPLE WHO RELEASED THE DKIM KEYS WOULD BE GUILTY, YOU COMPLETE DOLT. I didn't claim a crime was committed... you did, you complete dolt. Evidence doesn't imply a crime... you complete dolt. If someone peed in a cup to get tested for evidence of something, and someone else peed in the same cup... that evidence was destroyed. It can no longer be tested to form any conclusions. The potential for evidence was destro…

Yikes! Posting like this (and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743 ) will get you banned on HN. We're trying for the other end of the swimming pool here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id…

You're absolutely right... the other person was ignorant and wrong.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#477

Post by dang »

hashtagmarkup wrote: post #476
dang wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes! Posting like this (and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25133743 ) will get you banned on HN. We're trying for the other end of the swimming pool here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25066116 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id…

You're absolutely right... the other person was ignorant and wrong.

It's not a valid reason to break HN's rules.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#479

Post by dang »

hashtagmarkup wrote: post #478
dang wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a valid reason to break HN's rules.

Still ignorant and wrong tho...

That could certainly be. But why not use HN in the intended spirit? It would be better for everyone, you included.

Re: Ok Google: please publish your DKIM secret keys

#480

Post by hashtagmarkup »

ivanhoe wrote: post #285
avianlyric wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same argument can be used to build a police state. But I suspect that you’re not in favour that either. We shouldn’t be building technical systems that “trap” people, just because they might be doing something bad and might want to prove that one day. Additionally you’re also ignoring the whole “people have the right, to not have their emails stolen” argument. DKIM signatures are only useful if the emails are sto…

> Additionally you’re also ignoring the whole “people have the right, to not have their emails stolen” argument No, just the opposite, that is an excellent argument and I think that the privacy should be the real focus when we discuss the freedom, and not the accountability. Because freedom is not to be able to get away for the lack of evidence, freedom is not to put innocent people in that kind of situation in the f…

LOL! You believe in justice.

Learn how the real world works, muggle.

Post reply on HN