Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree that browsers simply don't have consistent enough APIs for the strong guarantees required for encryption, including strong random number generation and memory allocation behavior. That was the takeaway for me when I read this the first time.

The "if SSL, why JS crypto?," DOM, and "chicken-v-egg" trust problems seem more like straw-men and sophistry though. Desktop crypto underwent an iterative evolution with early adopters bearing the bulk of the risk too. (Mega got the digest part wrong, but they fixed it, for example.) SSH doesn't use certificates, but you can read the host fingerprint and follow the chain of trust that way. If people are going to use crypto, they have to take responsibility for these pieces, which is improbable en masse. "[T]he security value of a crypto measure that fails can easily fall below zero" definitely rings true. Repeated malware infections, however, suggest peope don't even learn after they are burned... "Normal users" can't be bothered to update their browser or verify trust (leading to VeriSign having complete power, for example), for the same reason "normal" people don't use the existing native encryption (GPG/PGP) and, if they did, there would be no need for JS crypto.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: