753100+ entries in 0.51s
ninjashogun: you're on
the couch on your iPad, want
to sign something an email it. Are you going
to keep your key on your iPad?
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo - I learned of
this literally 20 minutes ago. My improvements already have something
that can at least
theoretically work with an iPad and iPhone, which loads of people do
their surfing on in
the evening, and certainly don't want
to keep keys on.
BingoBoingo: Honestly
the improvement from USB would probably be RS-232
ninjashogun: dignork - but
then
they could no longer
treat it as a mass-storage device.
dignork: ninjashogun, alternatively, you could
tunnel over usb
ninjashogun: Again, none of
this is
to
take away from
the design as I've already read about it here. I like it a lot.
ninjashogun: I don't
think packet sniffing is a problem if you
tunnel over it.
BingoBoingo: Sure, but your wifi broadcast
traves how far from its point of origin?
ninjashogun: on an iPad and iPhone, you can copy
the
text, connect
to
the brick's wifi, paste it, copy
the result, and
then reconnect
to your normal wifi.
These
things don't have a USB stack at all.
ozbot: Mozilla Firefox is exploited four
times at HP's Pwn2own hacking contest-
The Inquirer
BingoBoingo: For all of
the "work" on Wifi and browser security neither is particularly secure
ninjashogun: I disagree, I
think firefox running javascript is one of
the simplest
things
to develop and
target 100% of PC's with. Also it would work on some
tablets, which have no USB subcomponent at all, but do have copy and paste and wifi connections.
BingoBoingo: Wifi and browsers are never
the simplest
things
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo - I always consider
the simplest hting
that could possibly work.
BingoBoingo: ninjashogun: Have you considered
that rather
than leveraging a complex behemoth of other people's work which was produced with
the potential of malice
towards your intended cause, you could just make something simpler.
ninjashogun: asciilifeform, if I can have up
to a 3 year grace period I would accept
that with
the full $22.5K.
ninjashogun: Fine, you can
take advantage of
that; you can make us of it; you can profit from it; you can be an indirect beneficiary of it; you can depend on it; you can rely on it; you can
take it for granted
mircea_popescu: i despise
the entire
thinking process
that got you
there.
BingoBoingo: Like leveraged gambling... Until
they come for your kneecaps
BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: ninjashogun: remember
to ground
the faraday cage
ninjashogun: Overall I would suggest you consider it due
to
the amount of security attention
that 1)
the WIFI stack 2) browser communications, have received. You can leverage
that.
ninjashogun: (my hardware has future versions as well,
that we haven't done any work
toward)
ninjashogun: asciilifeform,
this is not
to
take anything away from cardano - I like it.
ninjashogun: dignork - hmmm.. Well, on Mac and Linux you could do an md5sum or sha1sum on
the javascript before you run it. On Windows you can only use a custom certificate, signed by yourself, and know
the issuer.
ninjashogun: the wifi connects either a)
to your device or b)
to a MITM
that connects
to your device
ninjashogun: it makes sense
to me. You can always assume any computer will have javascript, and a wifi.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo bout a dozen in
the bucharest residentura.
BingoBoingo: I wonder how Many interns have been charged with reading
trilema nao.
ninjashogun: dignork, it doesn't matter who firefox
trusts. You can run a complete
tunnel using javascript all
the way
to
the final end-point.
The whole point of PKI is
that it doesn't matter who sniffs packets.
mircea_popescu: apparently somehow
they still don't see me coming, it's fascinating.
diametric: mircea_popescu: I enjoy your style of writing, and I wonder if she was prepared for
that kind of response. I'm highly interested
to see if anything else comes of it
dignork: ninjashogun, your Firefox will
trust almost any certificate, unless you'd verify it manually
ninjashogun: However,
the current version
transfers files in
the plain over
the USB protocol. it is 100% vulnerable
to a USB mitm - which could probably be made so small
that it almost fits in a usb drive.
diametric: mircea_popescu: your email exchange with
the "SEC" is fantastic.
ninjashogun: and it doesn't matter if
there are devices in
the way.
ninjashogun: asciilifeform, packet capture is not a concern because you can establish a higher secure channel from Firefox on
the computer all
the way
to
the final device.
This is possible because hte device can have a known fingerprint.
ninjashogun: What changes with Wifi? Well, you can still have a man in
the middle, but it would be much more prohibitive. It would need a complete access point
that connects
to
the device masquarading as
the computer, while exposing itself
to
the computer and hiding
the
true signal from
the computer. It's possible, but more difficult. And in
the end
the computer can do a complete secure session (in javascript with
the browser) compl
ninjashogun: I mean it retains no knowledge of what it signed.
The person can't go home and check everything
they've signed.
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo, since
this device as described does NOT retain
the signed document in memory, it is
therefore signing something without knowing what it is, if it has been
transferred between
the PC and storage medium.
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo, also, in my personal opinion as a security observer, a man in
the middle attack with a PC (or laptop) being opened, and a second usb host being inserted between
the real USB and
the device, whose purpose is
to subtlely alter what is being signed, is a very real risk.
BingoBoingo: ninjashogun: I mean why not some sort of cable
that might only incidentally happen
to function as an antenna, for which shielding is possibly. WHy demand an active antenna
throwing your bits around?
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo, however, it is absolutely doubtless
that wifi protocols get roughly 100x as much security research as
the usb protocol does.
ninjashogun: BingoBoingo - you are right and for
this reason I probably shouldn't ahve called it an "air" gap.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so what was so bad about independence ? (trying
to educate myself)
BingoBoingo: ninjashogun: Doesn't Wifi violate
the intent of an airgap even if
there is "air" involved
ninjashogun: and I like
the basic idea of not having your key on another PC.
ninjashogun: But
this is not
to detract from what you've done, asciilifeform (and mircea_popescu ?) Overall
the device is a VERY good step.
ninjashogun: I
think wifi security has more attention paid
to it, yes. Even when it's broken. Many eyes make security deeper.
ninjashogun: I
think
there are a lot of unknowns over USB and it is a frequently underestimated attack vector, with very little security research being done.
ninjashogun: :) I undrestand what you're doing with
the USB
thing. However, I, personally, do not consider USB stacks
to be very secure.
ninjashogun: I
think
this would be an interesting application for using one's private key without having it in one's possession.
ninjashogun: mircea_popescu, in fact it could be set
to ONLY sign/encrypt/decrypt
the next 1 message or 2 messages. So
that it can't be stolen off someone's body, as it's in
theri home and will only sign
the next 2
things.
ninjashogun: mircea_popescu, Why not? assume
that
the other end is in
the person's home.
Then
the wireless key is
truly unusable.
mircea_popescu: to further save costs,
the entire
thing could be done over
the web, as an app
ninjashogun: it could also come iwth storage, so
that it could be used as a "wireless storage device" (thru
the browser). rather
than have
to plug and unplug a usb stick.
ninjashogun: it would also save a connect and disconnect. And can be done unobtrusively at a computer, without having
to insert a USB stick.
ninjashogun: this suggestion isn't for
the current version, which as a piece of hardware is great.
ninjashogun: is more resilient
than a USB stack against, for example, man in
the middle attacks (if someone knows
that you will use
that usb drive
they could put a fake USB controller in
that MITM attacks it.
ninjashogun: asciilifeform, I have a suggestion for your next version. My suggestion is
that
the air gap with
the computer be maintained, by running (a different brick)
that is a wireless access point. You can connect
to its wifi and use Firefox on localhost
to upload and sign or upload and encrypt/decrypt files, which it would
then serve back.
This requires a computer with access
to WIFI. However, I
think in general a network stack
mircea_popescu: half why i even keep
that blog, if i didn't write
the shit up i'd end up forgetting it all.