Re:Apple Explains How Secure iMessage Is
by sjwright on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:10PM
(#7316828)
> Any non-broken secure messaging protocol should have this property
Okay then, tell me how you could build a system that
* Guarantees secure transmission of public keys
* Can be installed safely on a closed-source operating system
* Is impervious to the whims of the hardware vendor or the operating system vendor
* Is sufficiently straightforward that mums everywhere will happily use it
* Doesn't require users to become security experts
Given the practical realities Apple has to contend with, I think they've done a pretty good job -- certainly a lot better than what anyone could have expected, arguably a lot better than anything comparable that has come before it.
Re:Apple Explains How Secure iMessage Is
by lawnchair_larry on Thursday February 27, 2014 @10:32PM
(#7317086)
No, Apple has definitely done worse than what we have expected. Worse, they haven't provided what they claimed. That being a secure end-to-end messaging protocol.
This discussion about backdooring applications isn't even interesting or relevant here. The protocol itself is not secure.
This is like sending a PGP message over gmail using mutt on linux via IMAP. Google owns gmail, but they can't backdoor you or read your message in this scenario. Any non-broken secure messaging protocol should have this property, regardless of if people use it that way. This is what end-to-end encryption means.