9 ms·

E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. Unless you intend to give the government access to your plaintext, what you described isn’t E

E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. Unless you intend to give the government access to your plaintext, what you described isn’t E2EE.

mu53 2y ago
Is that google's definition or your definition? not being rude, but its pretty easy to get tricky about this. Since you are sending the data to google, isn't google an intended recipient? Google has to comply with a variety of laws, and it is likely that they are doing the best they can under the legal constraints. The law just doesn't allow systems like this.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  What's the intended recipient of your message? It's not Google, right? You're discussing encryption in transit vs encryption at rest in this thread.
  - mu53 2y ago
    I agree with you, but these abstract technical systems have enough wiggle room for lawyers and marketers to bend the rules to get what they want
- brookst 2y ago
  If Google is employing this “one simple trick”, they will get sued into the ground for securities fraud and false advertising.
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    history already proved you wrong. companies offering backdoor to abusive law enforcement are never sued. they also employ things like exempt cases. for example, Whatsapp advertise E2E... but connect for the first time with a business account to see all the caveats that in plain text just means "meta will sign your messages from this point on with a dozen keys"
    - brookst 2y ago
      It’s the lying that gets companies in trouble. The claim is that Google has implemented a security weakness and lied about it in claims to customers and investors. Show me another company that did this, was exposed, and was not sued.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        You are extremely naive if you think a company the size of Google or Microsoft or Apple will face any serious consequence from lying about E2EE actually being open to various governments. They have lawyers aplenty, governments would file amicus briefs "explaining" E2EE and so on. Worse case they'll settle for a pittance.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        Those companies never get sued? Never face class action lawsuits either?
        brookst 2y ago
        So all you’ve got is hypotheticals that coincidentally confirm your biases? These are giant companies. Show me where a civil suit for lying about a product’s security was defended by this kind of claim.
      - alt227 2y ago
        > It’s the lying that gets companies in trouble. It isnt if the government have asked them to lie.
      - 1oooqooq 2y ago
        yahoo sued the govt and was able to go public almost a decade later. as i said, history already proved that argument wrong.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Oh thanks. I've never done that before. I'll try that, it'll be very interesting to see those disclaimers. I guess for consumer use all that stuff is hidden in the T&C legalese which is unreadable for normal people. I know the EU was trying to enforce that there must be a TL;DR in normal language but I haven't seen much effect of that yet.
fc417fc802 2y ago
> E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. No, it does not. It means that only endpoints - not intermediaries - handle plaintext. It says nothing about who those endpoints are or who the software is working for. Key escrow and E2EE are fully compatible.
- barsonme 2y ago
  No, it is not. This is precisely why we have the term E2EE. An escrow agent having your keys but pinky promising not to touch them is indistinguishable from the escrow agent simply having your plaintext. Unless you’re fine with the escrow agent and anybody they’re willing to share the keys with being a member of your group chat, in which case my original point still stands.
  - zxcvgm 2y ago
    Well, WhatsApp backups claim they are E2E encrypted, but there’s a flow that uses their HSM for the encryption key, which still feels like some escrow system. https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee-backups/ https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee...
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      True but you can choose to store the key completely yourself. That fixes a big backdoor that's been around for ages. The biggest problem remaining to me is that you don't chat alone. You're always chatting with one or more people. Right now there's no way of knowing how they handle their backups and thus the complete history of your chats with them. It's the same thing as trying to avoid big tech reading your emails by setting up your own mailserver. Technically you can do it but in practice it's pointless because 95% of your emails go to users of Microsoft or Google anyway these days.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    Edit: I think you might be confusing your personal intention (ie I wanted this to be private but didn't realize the service provider retained a copy of the keys) with the intention of the protocol (ie what the system is designed to send where). Key escrow is "by design" whereas E2EE protects against both system intrusions (very much not by design) as well as things like bugs in server software or human error when handling data. > is indistinguishable Technically correct (with respect to the escrow agent specifically) but rather misleading. With E2EE intermediary nodes serving or routing a request do not have access to it. This protects you against compromise of those systems. That's the point of E2EE - only authorized endpoints have access. The entire point of key escrow is that the escrow agent is authorized. So, yes, the escrow agent has access to your stuff. That doesn't somehow make it "not E2EE". The point of E2EE is that you don't have to trust the infra. You do of course have to trust anyone who has the keys, which includes any escrow agents. If we used the definition "only your intended recipients can access the plaintext" ... well let's be clear here, an escrow agent is very much an "intended recipient", so there's no issue. But lets extrapolate that definition. That would make E2EE a property of the session rather than the implementation. For example if my device is compromised and my (E2EE) chat history leaks suddenly that history would no longer be considered E2EE ... even though the software and protocol haven't changed. It's utterly nonsensical.
tredre3 2y ago
Manufacturers have lied about E2EE since the beginning. Some claim that having the key doesn't change that it's e2ee. Others claim that using https = e2ee, because it's encrypted from one end to the other, you see? (A recent example is Anker Eufy) The point is that the dictionary definition of E2EE really doesn't matter. Being pedantic about it doesn't help. The only thing that matters is that the vendor describes what they call E2EE.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
Google intends you and the government as recipients of data here.
hot_gril 2y ago
Yes, but going by that, most messaging services advertised as "E2EE" are already not E2EE by default. You trust them to give you the correct public keys for peer users, unless you verify your peers in-person. Some like iMessage didn't even have that feature until recently.
immibis 2y ago
Sure is - three ends - you, the intended recipient, and the government.

E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. Unless you intend to give the government access to your plaintext, what you described isn’t E2EE.

mu53 2y ago

Is that google's definition or your definition? not being rude, but its pretty easy to get tricky about this. Since you are sending the data to google, isn't google an intended recipient? Google has to comply with a variety of laws, and it is likely that they are doing the best they can under the legal constraints. The law just doesn't allow systems like this.

gtirloni 2y ago
What's the intended recipient of your message? It's not Google, right? You're discussing encryption in transit vs encryption at rest in this thread.
- mu53 2y ago
  I agree with you, but these abstract technical systems have enough wiggle room for lawyers and marketers to bend the rules to get what they want
brookst 2y ago
If Google is employing this “one simple trick”, they will get sued into the ground for securities fraud and false advertising.
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  history already proved you wrong. companies offering backdoor to abusive law enforcement are never sued. they also employ things like exempt cases. for example, Whatsapp advertise E2E... but connect for the first time with a business account to see all the caveats that in plain text just means "meta will sign your messages from this point on with a dozen keys"
  - brookst 2y ago
    It’s the lying that gets companies in trouble. The claim is that Google has implemented a security weakness and lied about it in claims to customers and investors. Show me another company that did this, was exposed, and was not sued.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      You are extremely naive if you think a company the size of Google or Microsoft or Apple will face any serious consequence from lying about E2EE actually being open to various governments. They have lawyers aplenty, governments would file amicus briefs "explaining" E2EE and so on. Worse case they'll settle for a pittance.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        Those companies never get sued? Never face class action lawsuits either?
      - brookst 2y ago
        So all you’ve got is hypotheticals that coincidentally confirm your biases? These are giant companies. Show me where a civil suit for lying about a product’s security was defended by this kind of claim.
    - alt227 2y ago
      > It’s the lying that gets companies in trouble. It isnt if the government have asked them to lie.
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
      yahoo sued the govt and was able to go public almost a decade later. as i said, history already proved that argument wrong.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Oh thanks. I've never done that before. I'll try that, it'll be very interesting to see those disclaimers. I guess for consumer use all that stuff is hidden in the T&C legalese which is unreadable for normal people. I know the EU was trying to enforce that there must be a TL;DR in normal language but I haven't seen much effect of that yet.

fc417fc802 2y ago

> E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. No, it does not. It means that only endpoints - not intermediaries - handle plaintext. It says nothing about who those endpoints are or who the software is working for. Key escrow and E2EE are fully compatible.

barsonme 2y ago
No, it is not. This is precisely why we have the term E2EE. An escrow agent having your keys but pinky promising not to touch them is indistinguishable from the escrow agent simply having your plaintext. Unless you’re fine with the escrow agent and anybody they’re willing to share the keys with being a member of your group chat, in which case my original point still stands.
- zxcvgm 2y ago
  Well, WhatsApp backups claim they are E2E encrypted, but there’s a flow that uses their HSM for the encryption key, which still feels like some escrow system. https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee-backups/ https://engineering.fb.com/2021/09/10/security/whatsapp-e2ee...
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    True but you can choose to store the key completely yourself. That fixes a big backdoor that's been around for ages. The biggest problem remaining to me is that you don't chat alone. You're always chatting with one or more people. Right now there's no way of knowing how they handle their backups and thus the complete history of your chats with them. It's the same thing as trying to avoid big tech reading your emails by setting up your own mailserver. Technically you can do it but in practice it's pointless because 95% of your emails go to users of Microsoft or Google anyway these days.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Edit: I think you might be confusing your personal intention (ie I wanted this to be private but didn't realize the service provider retained a copy of the keys) with the intention of the protocol (ie what the system is designed to send where). Key escrow is "by design" whereas E2EE protects against both system intrusions (very much not by design) as well as things like bugs in server software or human error when handling data. > is indistinguishable Technically correct (with respect to the escrow agent specifically) but rather misleading. With E2EE intermediary nodes serving or routing a request do not have access to it. This protects you against compromise of those systems. That's the point of E2EE - only authorized endpoints have access. The entire point of key escrow is that the escrow agent is authorized. So, yes, the escrow agent has access to your stuff. That doesn't somehow make it "not E2EE". The point of E2EE is that you don't have to trust the infra. You do of course have to trust anyone who has the keys, which includes any escrow agents. If we used the definition "only your intended recipients can access the plaintext" ... well let's be clear here, an escrow agent is very much an "intended recipient", so there's no issue. But lets extrapolate that definition. That would make E2EE a property of the session rather than the implementation. For example if my device is compromised and my (E2EE) chat history leaks suddenly that history would no longer be considered E2EE ... even though the software and protocol haven't changed. It's utterly nonsensical.

tredre3 2y ago

Manufacturers have lied about E2EE since the beginning. Some claim that having the key doesn't change that it's e2ee. Others claim that using https = e2ee, because it's encrypted from one end to the other, you see? (A recent example is Anker Eufy) The point is that the dictionary definition of E2EE really doesn't matter. Being pedantic about it doesn't help. The only thing that matters is that the vendor describes what they call E2EE.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

Google intends you and the government as recipients of data here.

hot_gril 2y ago

Yes, but going by that, most messaging services advertised as "E2EE" are already not E2EE by default. You trust them to give you the correct public keys for peer users, unless you verify your peers in-person. Some like iMessage didn't even have that feature until recently.

immibis 2y ago

Sure is - three ends - you, the intended recipient, and the government.