Copyright: 2011-2014 Mozilla Foundation License: ASL2.0, see LICENSE.txt
This is an experimental tool for carrying on secure group conversations. Compared to similar tools, it has a number of unusual properties, that may or may not be important depending on how much you're a fussy cryptographer. Explanations are grouped by audience:
At the moment, it's not ready for end-users. You can only just barely play around with an ugly, confusing, incomplete and broken user-interface that looks a bit like IRC with a lot of random looking cryptographic noise in the titles and nicknames. Assuming someone put the code on a server for you to play with. It's mostly useless right now. It's only for developers.
Eventually, if we finish it, it'll have more interesting properties:
-
You'll be able to carry on secret conversations with friends, both one-on-one and among-a-group, that nobody outside that group can see (unless, of course, someone involved "leaks" copies of the conversation to someone else)
-
No 3rd party is necessarily involved in mediating the conversation; not even at a transport level. That is, you'll reasonably be able to have the conversation between phones directly, using their local radios, not sending your conversation through the phone network or internet.
-
Your words, and your friends words, are not so strongly linked to you that you can't deny ever having said them; to some extent you are protected from your past conversations.
-
Multiple devices can all share responsibility for your sense of identity, for speaking as you, for sharing access to the conversations you're involved in.
-
Multiple people can easily share an identity, in the sense of speaking with one voice or blurring the identity of an individual author.
-
You have a stable identity but it can't reasonably be lost, broken or stolen. It's something established and verified on an ongoing basis by your participation, by you showing up and being who you are. It's not a key, and you don't need to keep anything perfectly safe or secret over the long term.
-
Nobody can easily get a list of all the conversations going on in the system as a whole, or find new ones, or even tell how many real people are using the system, or how many machines are using it, etc. etc.
Naturally you should be aware of all the end-user-visible properties above, but it might help to frame them with the following technical details:
-
It's a peer-to-peer system with no distinguished roles for clients vs. servers, supernodes or such, except in edge cases of setting up particular communication links (bluetooth or HTTP or such). Data-carrying responsibility is spread through the system, falling out somewhat naturally from the (private, local) social relationships between groups.
-
It's an asynchronous system, with no need for all the peers to be "online" at once, nor enumerable, nor even periodically relating through a single transport. Peers and transports don't really have strong roles; they're more like buckets in which a content graph is (lazily) mirrored-around. The central data structure is a lot like the content DAGs in git, and you should think of the online/offline properties as similarly asynchronous, distributed and transport-agnostic.
-
It's a private-only system. There are no "public" groups or ways of communicating. There are only secret groups, and you have to be a member to read/write the contents. The only way to do something "public" is to copy plaintext out, or explicitly break the normal operating modes (eg. disable key rotation and publish a group's key, say).
-
It's an ephemeral system. Keys are ephemeral and continuously renegotiated. Groups are malleable and forward-secret: point-in-time ability to decrypt or participate does not grant a partcipant any insight into, or proof about, the contents of past or future messages in a group. Users are expected to lose devices, reformat clients, use temporary machines, forget passwords, reveal single keys accidentally, etc. etc. None of these events should represent system disruption or catastrophic failure for an individual or group.
-
It's an anarchic system, even at the level of an individual group: groups protect secrecy and induce a carrying-graph, but do not provide any other authority mechanism. All members of a group are equally empowered, and can all lie about their identity, kick one another out, change their names, or the like. There's no ACL system, no ownership, no read-write vs. read-only modes. The only primitive is "group membership", which you can always figure out by merely trying to decrypt a message. If you have a key that can decrypt it, you're a member. If you want to make a read-only view of a group, or a restricted / revokable sub-group, make a second group and copy messages into it.
-
It's implemented in javascript, not by necessity but as a sort of forced constraint for simplification and ease of deployment. This includes all the crypto. Modern JS engines are pretty fast. It should be possible to implement in any other language.
-
As a bundle-of-code, the JS in question runs on both "client" (web-browser) and "server" (node.js process). We'll move towards using WebRTC PeerConnection/DataChannels when we get those working, at which point the "servers" will just be STUN/TURN things. Later: phone radios.
-
While the prototype here is oriented towards working over the internet, and there's no reason why it shouldn't continue to be usable that way for people comfortable using the internet, it's intended to be (re)implemented as a cell-phone app that can communicate phone-to-phone or phone-to-deaddrop using the "local" radios (WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, UWB, ZigBee, DASH7, etc.), where users just physically transport the phones around for longer-range hops. That's where the name is from ("sneakernet" + "text messaging").
-
It's a very small codebase with very few moving parts; with a little care and understanding of the details, one should be able to reimplement the core protocol and structures in a few days of hacking. This is intentional, a design-goal.
-
It uses cryptographic primitives that are a fair bit more modern and efficient than most other comparable systems.
-
If you're familiar with the difference between public-key/asymmetric crypto and secret-key/symmetric crypto: this system runs almost entirely using secret-key modes. The only time public/asymmetric key primitives get used are ephemerally, to negotiate new secret/symmetric keys.
Sneakertext runs on newer and more-interesting primitives. You should probably take a bit of time out before studying it to learn how the following systems work:
- [Diffie-Hellman key exchange] dh
- [Multi-Party Diffie-Hellman] mpdh
- [Perfect Forward Secrecy] pfs
- [Deniable Authentication] da
- [Off-the-record messaging] otr
- [Multi-Party Off-the-record messaging] mpotr
- Kleeq kleeq
- [Elliptic Curve Crypto] ecc
- [Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman] ecdh
- [Curve 25519] curve25519
- [Authenticated Encryption] ae
- [CCM mode] ccm
You should have a pretty good guess by here of what you're looking at, but a few more notes on the odd / interesting properties to help frame the code:
-
Deriving the design:
-
Start with Kleeq as last-described in the literature.
-
Implement in JS, trim as much complexity as possible.
-
Replace the Lamport clocks with Git-like content DAGs, merging the verification phase and communication phase and simplifying the group-management protocol.
-
Upgrade the multiparty DH to Curve25519, speeding things up and shrinking the keys and whatnot.
-
Remove the stable public keys entirely. Names are public information, like in reality, and you can use someone else's name if you like; it's up to higher-level comparison of communication histories to inform trust decisions.
-
-
The last part is the weird one, so we'll repeat here: There are no long-lived keys. This is novel. It means that identity is latent in the communication-graph structure, and gets weaker the more people there are in a group who can lie about who's saying what; verification is online, based on active communication, and is stronger the smaller the group. A two-person group gets you some degree of certainty. I.e. if you're Alice, you verify Bob's "identity" by asking Carol to convey a secret you chose to whoever she thinks of as Bob, and check to see the same secret shows up in the channel you think you have with Bob. There are no private key-halfs to steal (or lose), and all such "verifications" are intrinsically only meaningful to the verifying party. If someone has MITM'ed all your channels, you're SOL anyways.
-
To repeat and make this concrete: user "names" are entirely non-cryptographic. Not key-hashes or anything. They're a combination of a nickname and a random nonce, the latter only to help avoid accidental collision when used at a global scale. Anyone can use anyone else's name at any time, and the names aren't connected to keys in any way other than "a person who is usually using name X also controls a machine that has a symmetric membership-key for group Y"; a latent fact that isn't expressed as any signature or proof, just a fact that can be observed interactively given a willing user.
This system is, in other words, intended as a counter-argument to the idea of PKI. It's our hypothesis that PKI is a mistake as an idea, that public key crypto is beguiling and pretty to cryptographers, but is an anti-feature when considering the security needs and intuitions of real humans: contextual, pseudonymous, deniable and recoverable identities, windows of vulnerablity limited by time and communication acts, and variable certainty that's inversely proportional to the (more socially detectable) communication-disruption effort of your adversary, not their (secretive) computing-power, or control of particular devices. We propose that security systems will match humans needs better by moving away from models of identity adhering to single keys, no matter how many bits are employed or how tamper-proof the device is made.
Note that while most of the code in sneakertext does not depend on this rejection-of-PKI (you could fork it, swap in a system of long-lived keys and signatures as the user identities, and probably be back in business in a weekend of work), it's important to understand that the current design is intentionally a departure from a PKI model (web-of-trust or otherwise), and will only return to that sort of thing if the current avenue proves untenable for some other reason.
See design.
Very preliminary:
- No same-user-tag / multi-device UI
- No multi-group UI
- No password UI, uses fixed client password and doesn't encrypt agent table yet anyways (as it must)
- Client and server both use very inefficient storage
- Sync is brute force
- Server does not serve client code over SSL or HSTS
- No as-an-addon version of client code yet
- No p2p modes between browsers yet, nor phone versions
- Rotation is missing important checks
- No code to support the inter-group verification cycles
- Just a sketch of data structures and algorithms