this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
72 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
3332 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Another article, much better and presents in more detail that Olvid was audited on an older version and chosen because it was French and they applied for it (French) https://www.numerama.com/tech/1575168-pourquoi-les-ministres-vont-devoir-renoncer-a-whatsapp-signal-et-telegram.html

Google translate link original post : https://www-lepoint-fr.translate.goog/high-tech-internet/les-ministres-francais-invites-a-desinstaller-whatsapp-signal-et-telegram-29-11-2023-2545099_47.php?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The translation has some mistakes but good enough to understand the context.

Here is a short summary :

Olvid passed a 35d intrusion test by Anssi (French cybersecurity state organisation) experts or designated experts, with code examination without finding any security breach. Which is not the case of all other 3 messaging apps (either because they didn't do any test, or because they didn't pass).

This makes WhatsApp, signal and telegram unreliable for state security.

And so government members and ministerial offices will have to use Olvid or Tchap (French state in house messaging app).

More detail in the article.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Signal does store the decryption keys in the cloud. Using their SGX enclaves. Which have their own issues. Signal SVR I believe they call it.

You can turn off signal pins, which still stores the decryption keys in the cloud, but then they're signed with a very long pin which is good enough.

From a government perspective, signals a no-go, the SGX enclaves are completely exploitable at the state actor level. You just have to look at all of the security vulnerabilities to date for SGX enclaves.

[–] stimut@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a reference for Signal using SGX for keys?

Everything I could find was about metadata and private data, e.g. contact lists (which is what the SVR thing that you mention is), but nothing about keys.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Secure_Value_Recovery

https://github.com/signalapp/SecureValueRecovery2

If you want to do an empirical test, create a signal account set a pin. Send a message to someone. Then delete signal. Recreate the account using the same phone number, recover using the pin and send a message. The receiver of that message will not get a warning that the signing key has changed.

The only way that's possible is if the key, or a derived key, is recoverable from the network. That is de facto proof that the keys or a key generation mechanism is in the cloud. Which is probably fine for personal communication.

But if I'm a nation state, this represents a significant security risk, especially when you're worried about another nation-state peaking at your communication. I.e France is buddy buddy with the US, but they probably don't want the US to read all of their internal communication.

SGX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions

https://sslab-gatech.github.io/sgx101/pages/attestation.html

SGX is a inside chip secure enclave created by Intel, a company headquartered in the United States, that uses key management, and signing keys from Intel. Intel could be compelled by domestic intelligence to provide their keys, or to sign certain enclave software. I'm not saying it's happened, but I am saying this is part of the risk assessment a nation state would use to evaluate a messaging platform

So a nation state attack might look something like this: Intel is compelled to release their signing keys, the signal user enclave is copied, using the combination of both of these a special SGX environment will be set up to brute Force the passwords, with no limit. The limit will be removed, and it will operate in the SGX environment, and brute forcing a six-digit pin is trivial if you're not rate limited. This is just one possibility, SGX has at least nine known side channel attacks at the moment, I'm sure there's more that haven't been published.

[–] stimut@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interesting, thanks for that.

The first link you posted states that the master key is stored. It also states that the information on the page doesn't match the official blog from Signal, but that they've gathered their information from the source code, so I assume it's correct. It does make me wonder why Signal doesn't say that they store the master key though 🤔

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 11 months ago

You don't have to trust blogs, do the experiment yourself, make a new signal account, send a message, set a pin, delete the app, reinstall, recover from pin, and send a message again.. the signing key doesn't change. That is proof the key is in the cloud.

Signal DOES say its in the cloud, but they use the Corporate partial truth..... SVR is for "personal data" ... which the key is. They don't emphasis it, because its such a bad idea, when they implemented this there was a big security online outrage... which seems to have died down.

Signal is a good enough protocol for daily use, but not good enough for nation states, or the truly security conscious. Signal is a step in the path to federated democratic private communication but not the destination.

load more comments (-1 replies)