[guardian-dev] Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative

Josh Steiner josh at vitriolix.com
Mon Nov 18 19:31:37 EST 2013


Amazingly detailed reply, thanks Elijah.  You just filled my evening
reading list.

-Josh

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM, elijah <elijah at riseup.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 09:37 AM, Josh Steiner wrote:
>
>> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ladar/lavabits-dark-mail-initiative
>>
>> Basically, it is an initiative to open source the lavabit's internal
>> code and turn it into a new secure mail protocol they are calling
>> "Dark Mail"
>
>
> The really annoying thing is that lavabit's platform and Dark Mail are
> totally incompatible and have nothing to do with one another. So the
> kickstarter is meaningless.
>
> * lavabit's prior software allowed the service provider to encrypt a user's
> IMAP disk storage individually to the password of the user.
> * darkmail is a project driven mostly by silentcircle that is to create
> something entirely new that is email-like, but not email.
>
> In case you missed it, moxie did a pretty good job explaining why lavabit's
> old code should die and should most definitely NOT be open sourced or used
> by anyone: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/lavabit-critique/
>
> This critique was later posted to arstechnica, and then later there was an
> exchange on reddit under Ladar's AMA in which Ladar doubled down on his
> completely unjustified claims and Moxie doubled down on lavabit being total
> snakeoil:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1qetvk/i_am_ladar_levison_owner_and_operator_of_lavabit/
>
> It is not pretty. Moxie is correct, of course, but a valid defense of the
> lavabit model would have been to talk about how US law treats data at rest
> very differently than data in transit. This was not the approach Ladar
> pursued. It does not totally matter, because that potential justification
> doesn't hold true anymore based on what we now know. So, really, there is no
> justification for making the lavabit approach open source.
>
> The darkmail project is interesting in that they have promised all things to
> all people:
>
> * end-to-end client-side encryption
> * automatic management of keys
> * not email, but xmpp used in an email-like way
> * but maybe also gateways to email for backward compatibility
> * asynchronous forward secrecy and metadata protection via SCIMP 2.0
> * thunderbird extension
> * local imap & smtp server so you can use existing mail user agent
> * open protocol and open source code so anyone can adopt
> * tools to make it easy for a service provider to use
>
> Because we don't have any details yet on darkmail it is impossible to
> critique. What we do know is that SCIMP 1.0 doesn't have the properties that
> are promised, and they can't be added without basically a whole new
> protocol. But I think darkmail is exciting and is making the right promises
> (total end-to-end security). I certainly hope they will answer my emails :)
>
> Of course, LEAP (https://leap.se/email) already does almost everything that
> darkmail wants to do, with the one caveat that currently we use SMTP
> exclusively and rely on the service provider for PFS and metadata protection
> (although we have a plan to fix this in the future).
>
> -elijah
>
> _______________________________________________
> Guardian-dev mailing list
>
> Post: Guardian-dev at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev
>
> To Unsubscribe
>        Send email to:  Guardian-dev-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
>        Or visit:
> https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/guardian-dev/josh%40vitriolix.com
>
> You are subscribed as: josh at vitriolix.com


More information about the Guardian-dev mailing list