I wrote a long post about the Efail disclosure to stop myself from tweeting about it anymore. Also it says mean things about PGP which I will regret for months.https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/05/17/was-the-efail-disclosure-horribly-screwed-up/ …
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
FWIW, as much as I still think the disclosure was a huge snafu, I do agree that PGP is probably due for replacement (and PGP *mail* in particular is a big mess). Just without the omg panic style.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @matthew_d_green
"PGP is probably due for replacement" is, at this point, an evergreen infosec tweet
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @lorenzofb @matthew_d_green
Just remember that for all its flaws, one of the Efail approaches doesn't even rely on a core PGP problem at all, and the other one only works on ancient emails for clients that correctly check error codes. PGP has problems, but isn't the biggest contributor here.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Whichever is the “bigger” problem, it remains a huge one that PGP uses a mode that has been known to be insecure for nearly 2 decades. That vulnerability has now been exploited. The fact that PGP advocates don’t acknowledge this does little for their credibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jpgoldberg @marcan42 and
I have some sympathy for slowness in moving to AE. We only did so in 2012. But saying “I can continue to use actively exploited broken crypto, because I can’t see how someone might exploit it in my system” is not good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But... It isn't. GPG has been using MDCs for a long time, and has been hard failing on decryption if they're missing for years. MIME-only vectors and stupid error checking bugs aside, Efail only works on very old PGP messages, using obsolete crypto before MDCs were mandatory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah. Didn’t realize that. When it MDCs become mandatory?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
GPG has been using MDCs since 2002 or so, and the lack of an MDC with Twofish and AES (which should always have one since they were introduced after MDCs) became a hard fail in gpg 2.1.9 (released in 2015). So for gpg since 2015, only messages pre-2002 are malleable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @jpgoldberg and
See? All this confusion is also why the disclosure was horrible. People think gpg is somehow vulnerable to malleability, when it really isn't and anything encrypted after 2002 should be safe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Killing those old ciphers was already on the gpg roadmap (thus refusing to decrypt pre-2002 emails without an override) but they were understandably wary of locking up people's archives. Though Enigmail just did that by treating the gpg warning for those as a hard fail so...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.