News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by enduser on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:16PM (#13395246)
Source code can be verified. Binaries distributed via app stores may or may not have behavior different from the published code.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by halomru on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:23PM (#13395302)
Any open source project can allow you to verify binaries by making builds reproducible. The fact that most apps don't do this is indeed a security problem, but one that's far from unfixable.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by thesimon on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:26PM (#13395330)
> Source code can be verified

But how often is that really done? And to be honest, it can be quite hard to spot critical bugs or backdoors, just look at http://www.underhanded-c.org/

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by DINKDINK on Thursday January 19, 2017 @08:25PM (#13441044)
https://gitian.org/

The bitcoin development community solved the problem of mapping source code to a binary build. Check sums or signatures of binaries is not sufficient. Open source is meaningless if you cannot verify the source maps to the build and you're running critical software with irreversible consequences. E.g. a bitcoin transaction or a dissident being imprisoned from state surveillance eaves dropping on communications.

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by jMyles on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:21PM (#13395288)
Certainly it's possible to remedy this situation simply by having the app author sign a checksum of binaries in the app store. Why this is not currently an option (to my knowledge) is a mystery to me.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by Groxx on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:31PM (#13395373)
It kinda is - you could add it to the description.

App stores seem to be getting progressively more hostile to this kind of thing though - you can't just download an APK / iOS app, you have to do it through a device. This lets the stores do "app slimming" (and per-country / per-carrier customized apks) to remove resources you don't need (like binaries that don't match your architecture), which would change the checksum. Which is useful, but inconvenient for this goal.

Something like fdroid may be supportive of this, which would be cool. But I wouldn't expect the mainstream ones (or Apple) to ever embrace it - it'd be a bad user experience / wasted UI space in the vast majority of cases.

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by mos_basik on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:51PM (#13395506)
It's been a while (a couple of years) since I last tried this, but I remember it being reasonably straightforward to get APKs of apps that were on the Google marketplace. Not through official user interfaces, of course. I can't remember if I ended up using some Chrome extension or a third-party app that needed root.

Not a particularly useful comment sorry, just "it was possible two years ago if you jumped through some hoops."

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by Groxx on Friday January 13, 2017 @06:03PM (#13395579)
You can probably still get the one that'll install on your device(s), but if there's customization for e.g. carrier X in country Y (or app slimming) you're unlikely to know or be able to find it from the infinite "download APKs free now!" sites.

And the last time I looked, all the apk-downloaders required your device ID, because Google's API does (for customization reasons) - it's much more of a "you can do this if you emulate a device" than "you can download it". I'm also not sure if the ID works unless you have gplay installed, which you may not have if you're being careful/paranoid enough about security to manually validate apps.

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by maxerickson on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:34PM (#13395394)
What would a checksum add over the app binary being signed by the author (which is currently the case for both stores)?
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by jMyles on Friday January 13, 2017 @06:35PM (#13395747)
Ummm good question. I feel silly for making this point now.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by obscene on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:31PM (#13395369)
That doesn't protect you against a malicious developer.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by jMyles on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:32PM (#13395382)
You mean someone publishing source code and then falsely verifying the binary checksum?

I mean, at the end of the day, it's very easy to verify - if the binary doesn't match what whomever gets when they compile, there better be a reason for it.

Regardless, I don't think this is the biggest problem facing open source.

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by Groxx on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:48PM (#13395493)
>if the binary doesn't match what whomever gets when they compile, there better be a reason for it.

True, but deterministic compiles are stupendously difficult in most cases. Which is improving slowly, but still isn't usually an option.

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by BuuQu9hu on Saturday January 14, 2017 @02:27AM (#13397366)
Debian is up to 92% deterministic builds, so not that hard:

https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.ht...

Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by Groxx on Saturday January 14, 2017 @03:54PM (#13400498)
Ooh, that is a heck of a lot better than the last time I looked at it. And a very neat link - thanks!
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by Ao7bei3s on Friday January 13, 2017 @06:08PM (#13395602)
Reproducible builds will fix that, soon.
Re:There is no WhatsApp 'backdoor' by andrepd on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:45PM (#13395473)
You can build and check against the binaries. What's your point?