News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by mixedbit on Saturday May 18, 2013 @06:16AM (#5728430)
You are aware that many popular services allow to share stuff privately using URL encoded credentials?
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by UnoriginalGuy on Saturday May 18, 2013 @06:40AM (#5728471)
Indeed.

Add this to the 1,000,000 other reasons why you should never use GET requests for authentication/verification.

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by mixedbit on Saturday May 18, 2013 @08:38AM (#5728694)
What do you mean by 'using GET requests for verification'? I think you are mixing different concepts. The problem is caused by URL encoded credentials and has nothing to do with GET requests. It is perfectly fine (and often desirable) to authorize GET requests.
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by UnoriginalGuy on Saturday May 18, 2013 @09:30AM (#5728828)
You can only encode credentials in a URL via GET. Therefore if people stop using GET and start using POST (aka forms) for authentication this issue goes away. Even just a simple pin.

GET issues are primarily related to the fact that an attacker can automate their access. So they could trick a user into going to a specially crafted site, and then request content on that user's behalf via GET forgery, and return it to the web-server you control.

It is very convenient, but fairly insecure.

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by jrochkind1 on Saturday May 18, 2013 @09:58AM (#5728914)
you are also ruling out HTTP auth, yes?
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by UnoriginalGuy on Saturday May 18, 2013 @11:30AM (#5729238)
In the context of this discussion I am.
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by StavrosK on Saturday May 18, 2013 @06:56AM (#5728501)
I'm thinking of building a WebRTC-based service to do just that, can you point me to an existing service that does similar things, so I don't waste my time? Thanks!
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by UnoriginalGuy on Saturday May 18, 2013 @07:05AM (#5728517)
Everything?

Sharepoint, DropBox, Owncloud, LogMeIn, Flickr, Google Docs, et al.

Private/one-time-use URLs have been a "thing" since practically forever and they're all over the place.

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by StavrosK on Saturday May 18, 2013 @07:10AM (#5728532)
Oh, sorry, I misread "private" for "secure".

Would anyone here use a WebRTC-based service that also encrypted the file in transit, thus making it pretty hard for anyone other than the recipients to see it?

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by drivebyacct2 on Saturday May 18, 2013 @08:26AM (#5728666)
How? The recipients have to manually type in the decoding key? Or they have an account and have been given access internally to the content?
Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by StavrosK on Saturday May 18, 2013 @08:28AM (#5728670)
https://myservice.com/#chan=somerandomid&secret=somerand...

Then you have to give the URL to the recipient (over a secure channel), but the app will optionally allow you to not automatically send the file, but tell you how many people are connected (e.g. if there are two when you're expecting one) and begin transfer manually.

Also, I'm planning to make it all a single HTML file so you can download/verify it and store it somewhere to use whenever you like.

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by drivebyacct2 on Saturday May 18, 2013 @08:37AM (#5728690)
I wrote a few paragraphs but don't want to talk past you, that sounds fine for a secure channel, but are you going to warn users against using Skype for example? I mean, I don't know if someone has tried Google Docs with Skype, but I know I posted a GDoc link somewhere a while back only to have a bot pop into the doc. So, if the same happens with Skype, someone "joins" this shared resource... and you hit "Transmit"... who or what received it?

Of course, Skype's bot won't implement WebRTC.

They'll implement the proprietary blend that they told no one they were working on until everyone else was making serious progress with the implementation that everyone else collaborated on...

http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/cu-r... [hm, they've actually put some money where their proposal is, I'll have to check into this more]

Re:Skype backdoor confirmation by StavrosK on Saturday May 18, 2013 @08:44AM (#5728710)
Yes, I'll make sure to tell users to share the link over a secure channel, or to verify each other's IDs. So, even if a bot does join, it ostensibly won't MITM the intended recipient when they say "my ID is ZXCV-BNMA", so you can still tell if the recipient is in.

Obviously it's not going to be secure against coordinated attacks by governments (which I will also make clear), but my intention is to have it be secure enough for 99% of people while being easy to use. It'll at least be more secure than Dropbox/Box/Skype/whatever, which aren't secure in the slightest.

Mega, for example, might be secure, but I haven't personally seen their implementation, don't trust them not to implement any backdoors, and don't trust them not to change it. I'm aiming to make mine as small as possible, so you can verify it at pretty much a glance.