News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Javascript encryption by DenisM on Sunday July 03, 2011 @07:07PM (#2724846)
>You're selling a service by saying that "we'll store your secrets for you and you don't even have to ever give us your key, so it's more secure than keeping them in a notepad file", but that's demonstrably false.

Now, aren't you getting carried away? Physical loss of a laptop will compromise the notepad file, but not the client-side encrypted data. Malware on the laptop will compromise the notepad file 100%, but any crypto-based solution will only be compromised if it's been used during that time. Fire/flood/theft will deprive the user of his secrets altogether.

Seriously, are you claiming that a notepad file is more secure than a server-based storage with client or server encryption? That's an extraordinary claim.

Re:Javascript encryption by thaumaturgy on Sunday July 03, 2011 @08:49PM (#2724994)
Yes, I am making that claim.

Especially since:

1. That notepad file can be encrypted on the laptop; and

2. "Web app" programmers so often get security really wrong. This entire thread is just one of a huge number of examples of that.

Honestly, any hosted solution that relied on JS for encryption or authentication would encourage me to keep storing secrets in text files on my laptop.

Here's a fun, easy way to understand why hosted solutions are rarely a good idea for storing private data:

- Make a chart with four columns;

- Column 1 is "Unencrypted local storage"; column 2 is "encrypted local storage"; column 3 is "remote storage with JavaScript encryption"; column 4 is "remote storage with SSL + server-side encryption";

- Under each column, write down a list of every method you can think of that that particular system could be broken. Take your time and be creative.

- Cross out any methods that all of the columns have in common.

- Compare the results.