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

How to Tell Us a Secret

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#91

Post by saagarjha »

ac4tw wrote: post #63
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can reverse engineer any Android app in very little time. Professionals use frameworks like Lobotomy, but you can get by with dex2jar and JD-GUI for most of it. It not being open source is a political argument, not a technical one. EDIT: I ended up doing just that. It took roughly 5 minutes (most of that was making sure I had my PATH for Java set up correctly on this machine) to get decompiled Java code ready to…

"It not being open source is a political argument, not a technical one." If I can compare the open source to the reverse engineered code to see what I'm really using/getting, that seems like a technical advantage. Also, all of the reverse engineered code I've worked with has been difficult and time consuming to digest (missing var names, comments etc); open source gives me a technical advantage in analyzing and under…

> Also are there good tools for reverse engineering iOS deployments?

There are many; since apps are native on iOS a standard disassembler would work. But there are many more specialized tools, such as class-dump and Hopper.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#92

Post by Operyl »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #89
reitanqild wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I avoid WhatsApp but this is correct AFAIK (given that they don't push a malicious client at some point.) The main problems with WhatsApp are as I can see: - they scoop up metadata - they upload the data more or less plaintext to Google for backup. (I personally dislike but trust Google but not everyone trusts them.) - they paid way to much for it to not try to monetize it in all kinds of crazy ways

> given that they don't push a malicious client at some point How do we know this hasn't happened already? How do we know it won't happen tomorrow?

Because there are a number of people constantly reverse engineering these clients to be sure that it doesn’t.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#93

Post by B-Con »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #49
myth_buster wrote: post #9

WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…

> This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. WhatsApp messages are encrypted end-to-end between each person using it. The whole point of end-to-end encryption is not having to trust the server-side storage . Furthermore, WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol-- the state-of-the-art for secure messaging protocols. The worst that WhatsApp ca…

Obligatory "don't forget to authenticate the other party. Encryption can be meaningless without authentication if someone MITMs the initial setup.

Follow-through on WatsApp's initial verification step using some other channel before you assume the communication is secret.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#94

Post by briandear »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #49
myth_buster wrote: post #9

WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…

> This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. WhatsApp messages are encrypted end-to-end between each person using it. The whole point of end-to-end encryption is not having to trust the server-side storage . Furthermore, WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol-- the state-of-the-art for secure messaging protocols. The worst that WhatsApp ca…

So why not just use Signal? Why even remotely trust Facebook?

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#95

Post by qubax »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #83
qubax wrote: post #81

A newspaper that quashed the weinstein story 13 years ago wants us to tell it secrets? https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-... The NYTimes should be the last company anyone should be telling secrets to. We have social media. People should post it anonymously to social media than an establishment organization like the NYTimes. Hell post it on HN. I trust HN and the mods here more than I trust t…

Seeing how "fake news" spread through social media, I have the complete opposite belief as you.

Sure, social media isn't perfect. But lots of real news spread through social media too. Real news like the weinstein story that the nytimes squashed. That's the difference between social media and the nytimes. You can't silence truth on social media. You could spread lies, but you can't silence truth. Whereas news companies can silence truth and spread lies.

Also, news companies aren't immune to "fake news". The news industry have spread their fair share of "fake news". And their fake news causes wars and the suffering of millions of innocent people.

If you really cared about fake news, then you should be more worried about the news companies than social media. It's odd you are not. But I guess you trust a couple of highly biased editors tied to the establishment more than an open platform like HN. I frankly trust HN far more than the nytimes. HN isn't perfect, but you are far more likely to get the truth here than in the nytimes. Certainly the mods here do a better job of keeping things even-keeled and less biased.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#96

Post by briandear »

jlmorton wrote: post #7
plgonzalezrx8 wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think that Anonymous tips can sometimes be a two-edged blade if claims are not properly backed up with facts? Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. How can this be addressed in a way that doesn't expose those…

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…

> the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration

Citation needed.

Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...

A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...

Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?

The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#97

Post by eggsome »

Angostura wrote: post #84
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. WhatsApp messages are encrypted end-to-end between each person using it. The whole point of end-to-end encryption is not having to trust the server-side storage . Furthermore, WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol-- the state-of-the-art for secure messaging protocols. The worst that WhatsApp ca…

WhatsApp requires you send the server the entirety of your contact list. No thanks.

Not true.

I use WhatsApp without doing that (on iOS), but it does require other people to contact you first before you can have a conversation.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#99

Post by noobhacker »

briandear wrote: post #96
jlmorton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…

> the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration Citation needed. Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-... https://www.na…

I read through the top 3 links and would love to hear you elaborate more on how these are counterpoints to the assertion that the Times would not print a story not independently corroborated.

The first link regarding Jayson Blair is the clearest counterpoint, showing a Times reporter fabricating story. This is absolutely an example of the NYT failing. But the same Wikipedia article says that the NYT, on their own initiative, investigated and fired Jayson Blair in a very public manner.

> After internal investigations, The New York Times reported on Blair's journalistic misdeeds in an "unprecedented"[14] 7,239-word front-page story on May 11, 2003, headlined "Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception."[2] The story called the affair "a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."

To me, publishing Jayson Blair's articles is a huge mistake by the Times. But the way they handle it proves that they do hold their journalistic values in high regard.

The 2nd article itself admits that what the Times published is supported by many others in the media. (Their point is that the entire media is lying.) The audio proof that the 2nd article mentions is also not included, so I don't know if I should trust it more than I trust the Times.

The 3rd link is not easy to understand for me since there isn't a lot of context.

Re: How to Tell Us a Secret

#100

Post by [deleted] »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #89
reitanqild wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I avoid WhatsApp but this is correct AFAIK (given that they don't push a malicious client at some point.) The main problems with WhatsApp are as I can see: - they scoop up metadata - they upload the data more or less plaintext to Google for backup. (I personally dislike but trust Google but not everyone trusts them.) - they paid way to much for it to not try to monetize it in all kinds of crazy ways

> given that they don't push a malicious client at some point How do we know this hasn't happened already? How do we know it won't happen tomorrow?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN