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

Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

bitf.ly

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 65 posts

Re: Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

#2

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

From the HN title: "secure"

I have a question: Secure against what thread model?

The FAQ has an entry for "How do I know you're not sending all my data to the NSA?" but that's the wrong question to ask (i.e. Even if you're not behaving maliciously, that doesn't mean our data is safe against highly sophisticated threats).

It would really be great if you could demonstrate what makes this more secure than alternative solutions.

That said, this is kind of neat.

Re: Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

#5

Post by nlightcho »

calanya wrote: post #4

"Secure" but "we advise against using Bitfly for highly sensitive data. You have been warned.". So is it secure or isn't it?

I trust my browser's developers with my most sensitive data (online banking password, government id etc.) but that does not mean I believe I am fully secure in doing so. There could always be a bug in the WebRTC implementation or the SSL library or the hardware. Maybe I should rephrase the FAQ to read "Don't put your highly sensitive data on the Internet at all".

Re: Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

#6

Post by nlightcho »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #2

From the HN title: "secure" I have a question: Secure against what thread model? The FAQ has an entry for "How do I know you're not sending all my data to the NSA?" but that's the wrong question to ask (i.e. Even if you're not behaving maliciously, that doesn't mean our data is safe against highly sophisticated threats). It would really be great if you could demonstrate what makes this more secure than alternative so…

Thank you for the feedback! I will change the wording of that FAQ question (+ answer) and make it more detailed.

I'm not sure about how I should go about demonstrating what makes this model more secure, except making it more obvious that it doesn't involve storing your data on servers not under your control which is the case with solutions like email and skype.

Re: Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

#7

Post by Rhapso »

nlightcho wrote: post #6
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #2

From the HN title: "secure" I have a question: Secure against what thread model? The FAQ has an entry for "How do I know you're not sending all my data to the NSA?" but that's the wrong question to ask (i.e. Even if you're not behaving maliciously, that doesn't mean our data is safe against highly sophisticated threats). It would really be great if you could demonstrate what makes this more secure than alternative so…

Thank you for the feedback! I will change the wording of that FAQ question (+ answer) and make it more detailed. I'm not sure about how I should go about demonstrating what makes this model more secure, except making it more obvious that it doesn't involve storing your data on servers not under your control which is the case with solutions like email and skype.

A big problem is that webRTC is highly MITM-able. You have to exchange initial connections using a server. So no party has any way of knowing if you are MITM attacking.

You might be able to do something diffie-helman shaped at the javascript level (hard to ensure it actually works) to show a fingerprint of the shared secret that could be confirmed via outside channels.

But all-in-all this does not offer ANY security over a server because there is no way to show it is not just being stored on a server.

Re: Show HN: Peer-to-peer secure file transfer using WebRTC

#10

Post by nlightcho »

Rhapso wrote: post #7
nlightcho wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the feedback! I will change the wording of that FAQ question (+ answer) and make it more detailed. I'm not sure about how I should go about demonstrating what makes this model more secure, except making it more obvious that it doesn't involve storing your data on servers not under your control which is the case with solutions like email and skype.

A big problem is that webRTC is highly MITM-able. You have to exchange initial connections using a server. So no party has any way of knowing if you are MITM attacking. You might be able to do something diffie-helman shaped at the javascript level (hard to ensure it actually works) to show a fingerprint of the shared secret that could be confirmed via outside channels. But all-in-all this does not offer ANY security…

These are very good points. I believe that adding any real crypto to the JS code to be a doomed path so I probably won't go for that. My only argument right now is couldn't one verify that the IP of the recipient is the same as the address of the expected receiving device (or router) and be somewhat sure it's not MITM?
Post reply on HN