Talk:End-to-end encryption
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Inordinate amount of page space devoted to Tetra
This article is literally mostly about Tetra. Is Tetra notable enough to get its own article so that this one can focus on its title and just reference Tetra as an example? Chris Arnesen 14:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the "Example: Tetra" section because it gave undue weight to one particular example, and it was written like a personal essay. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Article should describe potential vulnerability to MITM attacks, and means for mitigation
When non-certified/uncertified (is there a difference?) E2EE is used, there is potential for Man-in-the-middle attacks, especially between parties that have not previously exchanged public keys in a more secure manner. Because the article presently does not describe this potential, a reader might wrongly conclude that E2EE is by itself a complete solution to privacy and security, which would be a very dangerous misconception. The article should at least briefly describe the MITM problem, as well as means for mitigation (e.g. web of trust). While I'm very familiar with the problem, I don't have the expertise to adequately describe the possible means of mitigation, and in particular can't explain how (or even whether) those methods are used by the cited examples of E2EE protocols, software and services (e.g., ZRTP, TETRA). --Brouhaha (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Unsure about that info (Lavabit not E2EE?)
I removed a mention according to which Lavabit and Hushmail were not E2EE, which was not supported by the source (I put it back again later). I think to have read somewhere that Lavabit was E2EE before it closed, i.e. knowledge of the server's private key would not allow one to decrypt stored emails; the possible attack medium was by impersonating the server in the key exchange between the sender and the recipient of email, so that one could recover the client's key and read subsequent emails (and possibly the previous ones as well). Said otherwise, the server could be made insecure by changing the protocol, but the mail itself was secure until then.
However, by hunting around the web, I did not find it again. Does someone have a good source for that? The Wired one is the typical example of a layman journalist writing on a technical subject...
TigraanClick here to contact me 15:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Parenthetical examples in 'key exchange'
I note that the key exchange section is pretty odd.
pre-shared secret (PGP)
- Pre-shared secrets / keys are typically used in symmetric systems and PGP (which can use symmetric keys) is best known as an asymmetric system where each party only needs the other party's public key, not a shared secret.
or a one-time secret derived from such a pre-shared secret (DUKPT)
- The parenthetical link appears to be a method, not an example system like the others
They can also negotiate a secret key on the spot using Diffie-Hellman key exchange (OTR)
- This seems fine
But perhaps a better way to look at this would be the Unger et al paper, SoK: Secure Messaging, section IV, Trust Establishment, which helpfully differentiates between authenticated and unauthenticated key exchange (which this current section fails to do).
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Computer security articles
- Mid-importance Computer security articles
- Start-Class Computer security articles of Mid-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer security articles
- Start-Class Telecommunications articles
- High-importance Telecommunications articles
- Start-Class Espionage articles
- Unknown-importance Espionage articles