Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I don't think this is correct.

You may have adopted a somewhat definition of interception then I was intending there. Certainly it will not prevent traffic analysis but the content of the communication can not be discerned by a computationally bounded adversary under the assumption that the underlying cryptography is secure (and if it isn't... there are bigger issues). Modern cryptography isn't something you just wave CPU power at: the energy required to crack these constructs via brute force on non-reversible computers is not currently available to man kind.

> 2) Persona does not prevent against MITM.

Persona is, effectively, a distributed PKI system that binds ephemeral signing keys to a human recognizable identity. There is, in fact, a draft on using Persona (or any other cryptographic identity service) to authenticate the WebRTC session IDs: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-rtcweb-generic-idp... but it only protects against server-cooperating MITM if DTLS-SRTP is used and not SDES.

> Unfortunately you always need someone in the middle because even in 2013 probably 99.9% of 'things' on the internet are behind NAT

Having a signaling intermediary and and ICE/TURN service to get past NAT is completely orthogonal to having ephemerally keyed end-to-end encryption which cannot be tampered with by site controlled JS.

With DTLS-SRTP you can have a conversation signaled and NAT traversed by, say, Facebook which cannot be spied on by Facebook without— at a minimum— causing the two endpoints to show and record different session fingerprints making any interception detectable.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: