prettybunnys comments on ICEBlock - See Something, Tap Something

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Do you believe the independent security analysis of the app to be malicious then?

parent

[–] cubism_pitta@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When you do business with companies in certain industries not only is your software audited but your entire development process, business processes and staff are audited.

It's not unreasonable to question a closed source application for something like this as one version was audited, but what about the next?

How do we know their dev process hasn't been compromised? Or the person building app wasn't compromised? Or that the entire thing was not compromised from the start?

Likewise, an audit without full access to code isn't useless, but hiding behavior from an audit and for a certain period of time would be straight forward. How do you know there is not a dormant command and control system in the app that will cause it to behave in a malicious manner after a set amount of time or after a specific push notification is received?

I am not saying this is present, just that Audits like this are only able to catch what they can observe and the existence of an audit does not mean to blindly trust something

Having the App be open source would be a big step towards providing the transparency needed to address these concerns users would not have to trust anyone and can confirm the builds on the app stores match what is on their Git.

I am not pointing this out to jump on the "Don't use this app" bandwagon. I am pointing it out to say that there are reasons to be skeptical of these sorts of things in our current political climate.

Remember Sabu and LulzSec

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

Skepticism is good but there has been an almost blind fanaticism about this.

Grapheme made a statement, correct as it may be it cast more shade on this app than necessary and that makes sense as they have a vested interest in pushing android as a more secure ecosystem than iOS as that’s their true rival in this space.

What I am getting at is it is worthwhile to be skeptical of all sides, not just take the word of a side that fits with your biases.

I’d expect, and personally would not continue to use this app otherwise, this app to receive continuous grey box analysis from independent security professionals.

Take what I’m saying with a grain of salt but I’ve done mobile device analysis professionally for some time wearing a number of hats and that’s the perspective I am speaking from

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] cubism_pitta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago*

I have been on the other side of the equation professionally speaking.

I think we mostly agree.

The auditors were certainly not malicious, they can simply only see what they can observe.

Appealing to authority without explaining the caveats is risky to do and disingenuous to people who need to take security very seriously right now.

A potential vector or matter of concern does not mean there is a compromise. Without evidence of a hack or compromise you just have the idea that something could happen.

The app model in general has meant that we have given up tremendous amounts of privacy and security in general for the sake of connivence.

If I were the developer of this app I would've approached things from the inception with the question of "How do I get people to trust me who absolutely should not trust me?"

That said, it is always easier to tear down than it is to build.

If I were an at risk individual I would likely opt to use the app myself assuming I could share general location instead of specific location. In areas like LA there is likely a lot of data flowing in that would not help a malicious actor if the location is not specific.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent