You should stop using statements like "you don't know what your are
doing", etc or I will reply the same way.
I am participating to different W3C lists like CSP, Webapps & co and to
WebCrypto as a (not very active) member, so I know very well what's the
state of the art, surprisingly I don't see you on these lists, please
come on and express your opinions and see if you can afford to claim the
same things.
Whether you know something about the state of the art or nothing, and
you would then be dangerous since you are developping webapps, I would
vote for the later for now.
If you look at the CSP archives [1] I have attempted to use it,
unfortunately I ended up with something completely insecure, then I have
commented on other ideas of the group to secure the code loading [2],
then I stopped because there is no way to secure the code loading and
CSP is more about securing the sites than the users.
Back to Peersm, it uses a kind-of nonce/script hash mechanism to load
the code, better than nothing but useless against a mitm attack on the
main page, so this will disappear.
Peersm can't use https for now because of [3], I have raised this issue
on almost all the lists (webappsec, TC39, webcrypto [4]) without getting
a clear answer why Google and Mozilla are applying this policy, I
clearly explain again in [4] why the code loading for Peersm is
currently not secure, as all code loading in the world.
In its final phase, Peersm will only use Tor/Peersm bridges for web
fetching, all the rest will go through the Peersm network (browsers
using WebRTC) for P2P exchanges, the bridges will support secure
websockets and then https can be used to load the main page.
People like myself could still consider it's not enough to secure you,
so back to my initial comment: you don't need to load the code, you can
get it, check it's the valid one using different third parties and
inject it inside your browser.
The app is of course not communicating with the web (except for web
fetching through the bridges using the Tor protocol directly from the
browser), it's not browsing, talking to web servers, therefore the usual
web threats like code injection & co can not apply.
As I wrote the only danger would be a physical attack on your device
(you go take a coffee, someone around start hacking the app and
indexedDB with the web console, which is anyway difficult in the case of
Peersm)
The app is a standalone one, does not interact with what could hurt it,
communicates always using the Tor protocol, in the light of all this I
hope you understand it's absurd to say it's insecure.
And unlike usual app, extensions, plug-in, etc it's quite easy to see
what it is doing.
If you really pretend to be a crypto/web expert writing stuff to secure
people, that's really frightening for your users to read your opinions
and your understanding of the web standards, unless you start moderating
your conclusions and really look what the project is about.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Sep/0058.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Sep/0067.html
[3] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917829
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Mar/0204.html
Le 22/07/2014 03:16, Tony Arcieri a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You obviously don't know what you are talking about or just did
not get what I explained or just do not understand http versus
https or the contrary, or just do not understand the web, what's
on client side (browser) or on server side, or don't get that your
extension can be mitmed too including its signature.
Hey, it's just my job. I also write a whole blog post on the matter:
http://tonyarcieri.com/whats-wrong-with-webcrypto
I develop webapps that are served over HTTPS, HSTS, and use Content
Security Policy (CSP). You write webapps that are served over
plaintext HTTP and don't use content security policy, and if they did,
it wouldn't matter, because an active attacker can write the CSP
header unless you're using HTTPS.
tl;dr: I am using state-of-the-art web security. You are selling snake
oil. You are vociferously defending your snake oil.
but first checkout what is writen on Peersm site, everything is
explained
Your site is broken. It's unsafe. You don't know what you're doing.
You're clueless, and worse, you have some kind of Dunning-Kruger
complex that makes you think the opposite of what you should be doing
from a security perspective is a good idea.
There's no beating around the bush here. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Peersm is horribly insecure, and nobody should be using it.
Please read about the problem. I already linked you the Matasano article:
http://matasano.com/articles/javascript-cryptography/
But please also consider reading the book the Tangled Web:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tangled-Web-Securing-Applications/dp/1593273886
Here is a checklist of things you don't have which, at a minimum, you
need to implement for your site to be remotely secure (and even then,
users of your site are still vulnerable to you changing the code and
exfiltrating their secrets):
- HTTPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Secure
- HSTS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security
- CSP:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/CSP/Introducing_Content_Security_Policy
--
Tony Arcieri
--
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
[email protected].
