Kim Dotcom's Mega Fileshare Service Riddled With Security Holes

Alert by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Clearly he is helping the FBI set up a honeypot in exchange for his freedom.

Re:Alert by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-01-22 03:10 · Score: 1

You can get an account, without verifying the password you type.
Just one entry box, when I did it. Typo? Good luck! I guess it's time to get another burner email from Yahoo. :-)

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Meh by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 01:47 · Score: 0

While the concepts behind Mega were a huge improvement over similar sites, I still don't see the relevance of what is basically a tarted-up Napster-style file sharing site in the age of torrents (running over darknets, too).

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:56 · Score: 0

Torrents running...over darknets? Stay in school.
Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:15 · Score: 1

The so called leader of the free hosting market for the masses, dropbox, offers only 2GB of storage and has a notorious problem with security issues. As a comparisson, Kim Dotcom's Mega service offers 50GB, and at least tries to add security from the start instead of relying on smoke-screen press releases, as happened with Dropbox.
So, it's very relevant if you wish to safely store your files in a third-party server.
Re:Meh by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.i2p2.de/bittorrent.html

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Thanks a lot for the slashdotting, asshole.
Re:Meh by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 02:51 · Score: 1

I can't believe the person running i2p's homepage would be upset that I brought a lot of attention from people who are interested in the technology and have the means to expand the network.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Meh by V+for+Vendetta · 2013-01-22 03:59 · Score: 2

Size aside - it's not like there aren't (client-side) encrypted services out there already: Spider Oak or Wuala, for example.
Re:Meh by mcneely.mike · 2013-01-22 07:40 · Score: 0

But in this case, size does matter.

Well, that's what SHE said....

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Re:Meh by Seeteufel · 2013-01-22 08:04 · Score: 1

I like Ubuntu One.
Re:Meh by metrix007 · 2013-01-22 08:52 · Score: 1

How about because most laws punish people for uploading, NOT for downloading. So downloading through sites like Mega is a lot safer, especially if it's all encrypted. Besides, there is certain stuff I could never find on torrent sites, but I could get people to upload it to sites like Mega.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 09:03 · Score: 0

Is that a fat joke?
Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 16:24 · Score: 0

Wow, you sir are an Idiot.
Why put stuff online if it's only for you?

Honeypot Alert by rmdingler · 2013-01-22 01:49 · Score: 1

"You can't stay in your corner of the forest waiting for others to come to you. You have to go to them sometimes." ...A.A. Milne

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 01:50 · Score: 1

It is far more likely a dis-information campaign to further discredit him.

The government claims on Mega-Upload turned out to be a bunch of lies, and I see no reason to think this is any different.

Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is waht it looks like. The same thing has never been said about rapidshare, uploaded, bitshare, dropbox or sugarsync, and Mega hasn't realy been out yet, has already about a million registered users, and it already is the target of a disinformation campaign that no other service has been subjected to date.
It does smell fishy and it looks like Kim DotCom does scare some people.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 03:09 · Score: 0

That and most ISPs are blocking uploads.
Re:Bullshit by geminidomino · 2013-01-22 03:26 · Score: 1

I don't know about that. I mean, it's not inconceivable, not even close, but when you look at the aforementioned "masked password" problem (leaving out confirmation of a password you can't see begs for applied cluebat therapy) and the fact that even a "clean" (no add-ons or extensions) Firefox 18.0.1 won't even load the page for me, because of that stupid "The Operation is Insecure" LocalStorage error...
It's definitely possible that it's not entirely a hatchet job.

Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:00 · Score: 1

Are you kidding me? Read the indictment, the biggest threat to your files is Kim Dotcom!

http://i.usatoday.net/tech/pdfs/12-0120-megaupload-indictment.pdf

You are worried that some creep will break in, take your private files and 'share' them with everyone, and yet you've given them to Kim Dotcom's server?

Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:11 · Score: 0

If you don't trust his crypto you can superencipher your data before uploading and the whole thing will still be better and more secure than most similar sites (such as Dropbox, which has had numerous security incidents in the past already), so what's your problem?
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:29 · Score: 0

You are aware that you can easily upload encrypted and signed files, and you don't need to rely on anyone else for that, don't you?
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by sunderland56 · 2013-01-22 02:38 · Score: 5, Informative

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.
However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-22 02:53 · Score: 1

Huh that's significant. In the early planning stages I remember his plan was that only the user would know the encryption key, and apart from the security aspects of that, it would shield Mega from liability since they would then be incapable of even knowing what was uploaded. Both of those are untrue then.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by IRWolfie- · 2013-01-22 02:59 · Score: 3, Informative

According to http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/megabad-a-quick-look-at-the-state-of-megas-encryption/ it uses javascript. Which would be client side.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by nschubach · 2013-01-22 03:19 · Score: 3, Informative

It says on their developer page:

This master key is stored on MEGA's servers, encrypted with a hash derived from the user's login password. ... In addition to the symmetric key, each user account has a 2048 bit RSA key pair to securely receive data. Its private component is stored encrypted with the user's symmetric master key.
According to that, the keys are stored on the server, but it's encrypted with a hash of your password... I understand that all they would have to do is store the generated key somewhere and have full access to all your files if they wanted. I'm not debating that.
The part I'm trying to figure out is:

The cryptographic integrity of MEGA's user data is important to us. We can therefore not allow you to distribute or make available your client application without going through us. We will perform a code audit of your product and promote/distribute it on our site.
So they want full access to the source of your client "to ensure the integrity of MEGA's user data" but for some reason I keep reading that as though they know the properly coded application could damage their site.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by mark-t · 2013-01-22 03:34 · Score: 1

Theoretically can, perhaps.... but I was under the impression that Mega doesn't actually store both.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by sunderland56 · 2013-01-22 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

But that's the point. If they can in theory, then the site is not secure.
If they can in theory, then they can be forced to do so by a court order. Capture your password the next time you log in, decrypt your keys, then decrypt your files. If the courts can compel Mega to deliver unencrypted files as evidence, then the site is useless.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by ThatsMyNick · 2013-01-22 04:42 · Score: 1

However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.
Wrong. It is generated on the client side. Just because the web site generates it, doesnt mean the server has to know about it.
You are right about Mega being able to find the keys though. If they want to target you, they could modify the JS only for you and make the keys available to them. If you dont expect to be targetted for new uploads, it is indeed better than dropbox.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by ThatsMyNick · 2013-01-22 04:46 · Score: 2

Wait, I take that back. The private key is indeed stored on the server. So the only thing it, sort of, prevents is mass analysis of data (assuming they dont pull data analysis on the client side)
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by elucido · 2013-01-22 06:04 · Score: 1

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.
However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.
The private key is generated on your computer and not the website. They don't have a copy of the private key.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by elucido · 2013-01-22 06:08 · Score: 1

That goes against everything they said in their press releases? So which is the truth? Why would they need to keep the keys if they are trying to protect themselves from prosecution?
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by X.25 · 2013-01-22 07:10 · Score: 1

You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site. At that point they are all equally secure. Kim's claim was that Mega was more secure by design.
However, the claim is completely broken. Mega is using a public/private key pair - generated by the web site - and so their servers actually *do* know both your keys, and *can* decrypt your data. So, basically, it is no more secure than dropbox.
Hahaha. Honestly, you could have at least read the developer's docs. I doubt you'd understand it, but you could have at least try reading it.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by decourl · 2013-01-22 07:46 · Score: 2

Nevermind where the keys are generated. Obviously all of the pertinent keys are stored server-side. How else can you move to a new computer and still access all of your data with just your Mega login and password? Basically your password is the key. And the password security is abysmal. During signup, the confirmation link that they send you contains a hash of your login password, among other things. There is a password cracker program freely available that will recover your password from this hash value in a matter of a short while. Obviously they have all of this information stored (they're the ones who sent you the confirmation email, they're the ones who validate your password day-to-day when you login). So their claim that they can't access your data or be compelled to turn over your data is just nonsense. The encryption is basically a toy because it's designed incorrectly. It's not just FUD.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Seeteufel · 2013-01-22 08:07 · Score: 1

Of course it is. Kim has zero credibility in the hacking community. One of the few persons who got actually banned from CCC. And a squeaker.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Dahamma · 2013-01-22 09:28 · Score: 1

I always wondered why people would even consider trusting this guy with anything. I mean regardless of whether he is guilty of the current charges against him, he's already been convicted for fraud, data theft, insider trading, and embezzlement in the past.
We'll see how the situation plays out, but you'd have to be pretty naive to be surprised if a two time convicted criminal ended up doing something illegal in his current venture...
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by fuzzytv · 2013-01-22 10:05 · Score: 2

Not true. Have you actually checked the code, or do you just repeat the nonsense mentioned on many sites?
I haven't done a thorough analysis of the code / traffic so far, but from what I've seen so far the key is generated on the client-side using this Javascript, namely SJCL (Stanford Javascript Crypto Library). For example this is the keygen: https://eu.static.mega.co.nz/keygen_0.js, this is the RSA implementation https://eu.static.mega.co.nz/rsa_0.js and so on. Once the key is generated on client, the private key is encrypted with the user's password (which is also kept on client-side only), and this (public and encrypted private key) is sent to Mega server. On the next login the server sends the encrypted key (after some initial handshake, described in the developer docs) and the key is decrypted on the client-side again.
Please, explain to me how the server knows both my keys, how can they decrypt the data?
Obviously, there could be a malware, or they could send the password to the server, but let's suppose that's not the case.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 10:15 · Score: 0

If your password is "analsex" no cryptography on earth will make your data secure.
Re:Security hole 1, Kim Dotcom by cavebison · 2013-01-23 15:14 · Score: 1

> You can encypher your data before uploading on *any* site.
Indeed. It has always astounded me that people upload files with the full name of the movie/software, and often as .avi, not even zipped, let alone encrypted. Then they complain about the service changing its policies or shutting down, after it came under scrutiny, when it's more or less their own fault. Very weird.

Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by eldavojohn · 2013-01-22 02:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

The SSL encryption being used on Mega appears to be 1024-bit encryption, which can be broken with far greater ease than 2048-bit encryption viewed as best-practice amongst experts.

Isn't this kind of nitpicking? Isn't the solution to this like changing a value in your configuration or properties files on both sides and watching performance drop a bit? I guess when you have that many users sign up at the drop of a hat, you're expected to have unblemished perfection available for all. But I don't really see this "riddled with security holes." Instead I'd say "needs improvement before you trust it with anything important." As a software developer, I'm prone to give people a break but I guess if your site isn't prepared to be hosted at DEFCON you're fodder.

I mean, some of these points are valid like I have no idea why you would choose to do this in JavaScript but I guess if you want it to run entirely contained within the browser you don't have much choice unless you start to get into platform specific things like nacl.

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore. The longer his fifteen minutes of fame last the bigger embarrassment he's going to have in the 24 hour news cycle's circle of hate. Ugh, and his name is something straight out of Idiocracy ... did he try to change his first name to "The Bomb" but was blocked by the TSA? :-)

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Dins · 2013-01-22 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore
No doubt. The man legally changed his name to Kim Dotcom. That's not attention whoreish at all...
/sarcasm
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by DerekLyons · 2013-01-22 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely?
Because *everyone* loves a good reality show or celebrity meltdown. We all love to live vicariously, but different people chose different targets.

Thus, the Slashdot Demographic follows Dotcom, McAfee, etc... the way the rest of the world follows the Kardashian's, or Paris Hilton, or Lance Armstrong, or whatever their personal flavor of the month is.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:33 · Score: 0

Considering all the data in the files are encrypted before being uploaded the SSL encryption is only needed to protect user login. I've just checked and it appears to be using 2048-bit encryption (for login at least) so it's either been fixed or wasn't an issue in the first place.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:34 · Score: 2, Funny

For the longest time I thought Kim Dotcom was a woman. I mused that perhaps she is an ex-pornstar? So I wasn't surprised or bothered by the blatant attention whoring. Then I saw his picture and... I remain deeply troubled.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by hpoul · 2013-01-22 02:43 · Score: 2

The man legally changed his name to Kim Dotcom
btw. has anyone an idea how/where he "legally" changed his name? most german sources still refer to him as "kim schmitz", and i have found nothing which states if he changed his name in germany or finland (as it seems he has both citizenships) .. the german wikipedia entry only refers to the name saying "In Neuseeland tritt Schmitz unter dem Namen Kim Dotcom auf" - does this mean he simply used a wrong name when entering NZ, or did he change his name in NZ, but not in finland/germany?

--
Find me at http://herbert.poul.at
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 03:05 · Score: 0

the Kardashian's, or Paris Hilton, or Lance Armstrong
Who the hell are they?
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by IRWolfie- · 2013-01-22 03:12 · Score: 1

I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore.

You make it sound like Kim Dotcom wrote the original (seemingly skewed) submission, rather than being the target of it.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by fermion · 2013-01-22 03:21 · Score: 3, Informative

No, because it is promoted as a secure site that protects the users privacy. If we promoted as a place where users could get 50GB free space and there was an effort using various means to provide some insurance that user data was protected that would be different. One thing we have learned is that free data storage is seldom secure.
The point of the story is to shore up the idea that many of us have had. That the encryption is not intended to to one's data secure, or to insure privacy, but to provide a means by a arms length relationship between Mega and the data that user upload. This may force any future legal battles to be between right holders and individual uploader, not right holders and mega. If you wonder what the benefit of that is to Mega and uploader, just think of how corporations hate class action lawsuits.
But the damage occurs if users believe that the site is secure and private, so upload valuable information that Mega could later, through a change in the terms of use, mine or sell. Or some may use the site as the primary depository of data, then lose access to the data through the muddled security.
This is an interesting topic because many believe security is easy. That I can put 100 combination locks on a door and make it 100 time more secure. That I can advertise a product 'uses 4096 Bozo military grade encryption', plug a product that uses this encryption into the software, and automagically have a more secure product that uses 1024 bozo encryption.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by sacrilicious · 2013-01-22 03:38 · Score: 1

I agree with your main point(s) about how "riddled with security holes" is an overdramatization. But about the following:

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore.
... you sort of lose me in this part. You start off wondering why people are paying attention, and that's a fine/debatable question to kick around with the interested, but then you invert it and attribute people paying attention to KDC being an attention whore. I read this transition as going from "what's interesting about this and why does (e.g.) slashdot keep covering it" to "I don't like KDC's behavior".

If you don't like KDC, stop reading articles covering it. If you take issue with slashdot covering it, take your shot at the slashdot editors.

Personally, I don't see KDC's behavior as attention whoring any more than, say, Julian Assange's. One might be tired of hearing about Julian, but I think it's a real stretch (an impossible stretch, actually) to claim Julian is simply trying to garner media attention for the sake of no end but his own limelight. Ditto KDC. And if you let KDC's name-change cloud your assessment of the real substance of what he's doing, I guess that would suggest to me a disapointing lack of perspective on your part.

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by geminidomino · 2013-01-22 03:39 · Score: 1

Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom?

Can't speak for others, but for me personally, my reason is quite simple.
Fifty freakin' gigs. EOL
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by MozeeToby · 2013-01-22 03:56 · Score: 1

Speaking of picking nits, isn't using javascript's random function to generate the key kind of nit picky also? First and foremost, they do gather entropy from user interaction (mouse movements and key presses). Ok, in theory if a user uses the minimum path, keyboard only navigation you could possibly, maybe figure things out. Except even thing, generating the key is a one time thing. Unless you're literally on the run from the NSA when you sign up for the service I just don't see it as that big of deal (in which case, personally I'd be using truecrypt to encrypt everything before I sent it to the cloud anyway).
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by dyingtolive · 2013-01-22 04:05 · Score: 1

I don't know about that (though it could just be my gag reflex talking).

I follow this because I'm interested in the service and would like to see it actually survive, and also because it feels a lot like the plot to Cryptonomicon in real-life, minus constantly talking about how awesome one time pads are. The fact that Dotcom's name is attached to it is coincidental, at least, for me.

Oh, another difference: Psychotic lawyers are yet to appear in the real life version, though there has been some heavy foreshadowing in that direction.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by dyingtolive · 2013-01-22 04:06 · Score: 1

Oh, other reason to care: Free 50gb storage.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by MozeeToby · 2013-01-22 04:42 · Score: 1

They're all people who are famous primarily for screwing other people people and having lots of evidence go public. ;)
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by NoSleepDemon · 2013-01-22 04:44 · Score: 2

One likes to be ridden while high, the other likes to ride while high, and the third is just a skank.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by SethJohnson · 2013-01-22 05:01 · Score: 1

But if the guy is already a celebrity, isn't attention-whoring part of his job description?

In a related topic, it's been something of an industry rumor for the past six months that Dice has made a confidential offer to an ex-member of the band, Guns-n-Roses, to change his last name to "dot org".

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Terrasque · 2013-01-22 05:10 · Score: 2

ALL of it is nitpicking, or just plain out wrong.
Lemme see, SSL part. Well, main site use 2048 bits, and the JS on that page loads and verifies all other resources. And file upload / downloads are already encrypted before SSL even touches them. So that point is completely moot.
And the "Mega server could send bad code" is already covered in Mega's own FAQ - well,duh. I doubt it comes as a shock to anyone.
As for the deduplication, I don't know. But there are ways to do that (like using file content hash as encryption key, for example - no idea if they actually do this - or just try to dedup the actual encrypted content. There is a (well, small) chance that two encrypted files have same data in a block). We just don't know, and making wild assumptions from it is .. just wrong.
Also, Mega does in fact NOT use JS random function. It use time sampling from user generated events, with RC4 as mixing function.
The whole article is just stupid. It makes wild assumptions, doesn't understand how (parts of) the site works, repeat things the site already informs users about, and are just plain wrong on some parts.
Is this yet another troll article by some attention hungry ad pushers?

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Terrasque · 2013-01-22 05:18 · Score: 2

Dedupe update:

"Deduplication is done based on the entire encrypted file and only happens if you either upload the same file encrypted with the same key twice (unlikely) or if you copy or import an existing file in your file manager (more likely)."
I was saying something about wild assumptions... Yep..

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by V+for+Vendetta · 2013-01-22 05:55 · Score: 1

To add to that: in Germany changing your name, especially your lastname, is generally not possible: "Im derzeit geltenden Namensrecht gilt der Grundsatz der Unabänderlichkeit des Namens." There are exceptions to that law, but I doubt that Schmitz applies for any of them.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Terrasque · 2013-01-22 06:35 · Score: 4, Informative

You haven't read their own FAQ I take it?
They're actually upfront about threats to the user's security.

Is my stored data absolutely secure?
All security is relative. The following attack vectors exist - they are not specific to MEGA, but we want you to know about the risks:
Individual accounts are jeopardized by:
- Spyware on your computer. A simple keylogger is enough, but session credentials and keys could also be extracted from memory or the filesystem.
- Shoulder surfing. Do not type your password while someone could watch your keystrokes.
- Password brute-forcing. Use strong passwords.
- Phishing. Always confirm the security status of your connection (https://) and the correct domain name (mega.co.nz) before entering your password.
Large-scale attacks could be mounted through:
- A "man in the middle" attack. Requires issuing a valid duplicate SSL certificate in combination with DNS forging and/or attacks on our BGP routes (a DigiNotar-style scenario).
- Gaining access to the webservers hosting https://mega.co.nz/index.html and replacing that file with a forged version (this would not affect access through the installed app base). Note that manipulating content on our distributed static content CDN does not pose a security risk, as all active content loaded from index.html is subject to verification with a cryptographic hash (think of it as some kind of "secure boot" for websites). This type of attack requires sending malicious code to the client and is therefore detectable.
- Gaining access to our core server infrastructure and creating forged key requests on existing shares. This type of attack only affects data in shared folders and is detectable on the client side as well.

What if I don't trust you? Is it still safe for me to use MEGA?
If you don't trust us, you cannot run any code provided by us, so opening our site in your browser and entering your password is off limits. If you still want to use MEGA, you have to do so through a client app that was written by someone you trust.
Doesn't that look pretty reasonable? What more do you want them to do? They created a pretty impressive webclient-driven easy-to-use file locker system, and they clearly spell out the problems with that approach.
Many of the article's points are pretty moot, btw. It does not use JS random function, they have extra verification for the 1024 bit SSL encrypted data, and the deduplication only works for shared files ("copy to my locker" functionality is mentioned - same data, same key, same place on the storage servers).
The part about mega.co.nz being able to send malicious code stealing your password is explicitly mentioned in their FAQ, and in a better way too. They even cover other attack vectors the article didn't.
They made a decent system, and they're upfront and honest about it's limitations. The article is at best FUD.

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by whathappenedtomonday · 2013-01-22 07:15 · Score: 1

If you have a nom de plume, you can have it in your passport, too. (.de) That guy used quite a few screen names in the past (Kimble, Dr. Kimble, Kimvestor), and as far as I can gather, the Dotcom thing is just that: a screen / pen name.

--
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 07:25 · Score: 1

1) the question is not if Mega can be attacked, but if the security is robust to attack. It is presented as robust, yet some analysis says it is not.
2) There re levels of trust. I may trust a stranger on the street to give me a jump, but not to take my car to the mechanic. Likewise, I certainly trust Mega enough to store much of my data, but perhaps not to as way to back up sensitive business data. For instance, I might upload large raw photos to Mega, but not bank records. This nuance of trust is something that many wish to ignore, and is clearly evident in FAQ. You trust us enough to run code in a theoretically sandboxed browser window, so you should trust us enough to give us year house and car keys.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 07:31 · Score: 0

In New Zealand you don't have to formally change your name, although there is provision to do so via a deed poll. You just tell everyone who needs to know what you wish to be called. Most common application of this is when a woman gets married and takes her husbands name. You can also use more than one name if you wish, although doing so to aid in fraud will not look good when you come to trial. You do see courtcases against "name A, also known as name B."
So quite possibly Mr Dotcoms German passport still has his original name, no problem, he can be called whatever he wants in NZ. (He is a legal resident here.)
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by rtb61 · 2013-01-22 15:34 · Score: 1

With the court case still going on, obviously several parties are highly motivated to attack KDC publicly in any way possible in order to taint all possible juries into having a negative image of KDC and to side ruling against him, whether in a criminal or more importantly a civil court. The US government is up for hundreds of millions of dollars in a blatantly corrupt prosecution, where a Vice President drove the case at the behest of industry lobbyists in order to garner support for an upcoming US election.
You can expect the slander and defamation to kick off from every possible mass media outlet, with suggestive questions, direct personal attacks and of course targeting any business ventures launched by KDC.
Current public perception is, KDC is winning, the US government was corrupt, and the little lamb NZ government got right royally screwed. So any negative mass media publicity will be viewed as tainted. Basically a business was destroyed in order to ensure campaign support for an Uncle Tom President and now someone has to pay for that destruction.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by strikethree · 2013-01-22 17:35 · Score: 1

Because *everyone* loves a good reality show or celebrity meltdown. We all love to live vicariously, but different people chose different targets.
No. Not everyone. Have a good day. :)

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Tom · 2013-01-22 23:13 · Score: 2

Isn't this kind of nitpicking?
I'm not sure. The difference between 1024 bit and 2048 bit is that 2048 bit is this times as much as 1024:
17976931348623159077293051907890247336179769789423065727343008115773\
26758055009631327084773224075360211201138798713933576587897688144166\
22492847430639474124377767893424865485276302219601246094119453082952\
08500576883815068234246288147391311054082723716335051068458629823994\
7245938479716304835356329624224137216
(had to split it up due to the lameness filter. doh!)
There isn't even a name for this order of magnitude. When cryptographers say that "1024bit can be broken with far greater ease than 2048bit", that is the understatement of the year. For comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be around:
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
000000000000000

I have no idea why you would choose to do this in JavaScript

Because Javascript is inherently insecure for cryptography. Never do any serious crypto in Javascript. Unless you want it to be broken.

but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore.
And that's exactly what he is. He's playing /. and everyone else in a bid of either a) selling them out to the FBI - again (he's done it before, check his history) or b) getting out of his current predicament thanks to publicity and public pressure.

Ugh, and his name is something straight out of Idiocracy ... did he try to change his first name to "The Bomb" but was blocked by the TSA? :-)
No, he's an attention whore. His actual name is Kim Schmitz. He's from Kiel, a small northern german city less than a hundred miles from where I live. He left Germany after a criminal conviction and because the hackers and geeks here had caught on to his game and he was widely despised.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by DerekLyons · 2013-01-23 00:36 · Score: 1

No, not "everyone" in the literal sense... but close enough for all practical purposes. :)
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Inda · 2013-01-23 00:44 · Score: 1

Likely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crypto key is the user's password.

Common passwords are just that, common. We all know there's a high chance the password will be password, god, 12345, or querty.

50,000 copies of New.Movie.1080p.XVID.NOGROUP are uploaded.

I would suggest a large number of those copies will match byte for byte.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:Isn't Some of this Stuff Sort of Nitpicking? by Terrasque · 2013-01-23 01:05 · Score: 1

User's password is used for unlocking user's RSA key. File key is randomly generated (and encrypted with said RSA key before sent to server).
They cover the crypto in section 1.4 here, if you're interested.

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Servers located where ? by xushi · 2013-01-22 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Security folk have also flagged problems with the fact that Mega uses a web browser to send encryption information, opening avenues for attackers to intercept keys by breaking SSL or by commandeering Mega's servers, some of which are said to be located in the United States."

Err, hang on.. I could swear I read a while ago that the whole point of all this was to have servers that are OUTSIDE of US ?

What's going on here?

Re:Servers located where ? by MurukeshM · 2013-01-22 02:12 · Score: 1

I thought the whole point was that Mega didn't have any servers. They outsource that part to several small file hosting sites. Maybe a few might be in the US?
Re:Servers located where ? by MurukeshM · 2013-01-22 02:12 · Score: 1

Damn me for not looking before clicking the submit button.
Re:Servers located where ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 04:28 · Score: 0

It's looking more and more like FUD. Not that I'd advocate trusting the site yet.

A grain of salt by aaaaaaargh! · 2013-01-22 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

While it seems likely that Mega's encryption is not exactly the creme de la creme of crypto implementations, I have also read some pretty dubious assessments of its cryptography, for example the review at Ars Technica which spreads more FUD than facts. Or take the claim in one of the above articles claims that the FBI is probably already typing their search warrants, which ignores the fact that this time not a single server is located within the US.

Perhaps some writers on tech news sites fear about their ad revenues?

Re:A grain of salt by hcs_$reboot · 2013-01-22 02:43 · Score: 2

Talking about Ars, there is an interesting article about Mega encryption

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:A grain of salt by Terrasque · 2013-01-22 02:59 · Score: 1

I wrote a comment about the crypto system yesterday, from a outsider amateur's point of view. Nothing in that article was even surprising.
It's actually pretty cool, they do point out more or less the exact things in their FAQ, which is surprisingly honest for such a site. Most would try to handwave it away or just outright ignore it.
As extra info to that comment I wrote earlier, I confirmed that they save a version of the RSA key on their server, and during login a blob of data is sent in (login user in cleartext, and probably hashed / crypted pw) to check if its a valid user before handling out the RSA key.
I can imagine sharing works like this : 1. find friend, 2. get pub key for friend, 3. decode file key with my private key, 4. encrypt it with friend's public key, 5. send to server
And sharing folders .. I guess each folder have an encrypted list of keys to files in it, and the key for the folder is encrypted with your key. So sharing a folder would then work much the same as sharing a file.
And regarding deduplication I saw an idea in a comment that could explain that. Every file is hashed locally, the hash being the actual AES key. Encrypt file, use pub RSA to encrypt hash, send both to server. Same file will be same file, dedup works, and everyone got their own key to it. That would also allow them to nuke all uploads of an illegal file, and keep "bad file" hash lists for child porn and similar.
Now, I haven't actually looked at the JS code for the service yet, so all of this guesstimate :)

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Re:A grain of salt by Terrasque · 2013-01-22 04:01 · Score: 2

Update : Regarding the random source, this is the code they use, and it's from this project. It use mouse and keyboard events (not all, math.random is used to decide which ones), with rc4 as mixing function.
And it seems to be running since page load (started in crypto0001,js) - AES function is from Stanford Javascript Crypto Library btw, and RSA code is from this project.

--
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Re:A grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 07:15 · Score: 0

Funny though, while reading the OP I was pretty sure the FUD part referred to this very article...but I guess one man's FUD is another's truth...

preprocessor?? by 1u3hr · 2013-01-22 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

"... Megaupload, Mega's preprocessor."

I expect this means "predecessor". The editors are actually paid in money to click "submit" without reading or understanding the articles?

Re:preprocessor?? by coldsalmon · 2013-01-22 02:13 · Score: 4, Funny

They're using Megaupload as a preprocessor? Clever - that way there's no copyright infringement at compile time.
Re:preprocessor?? by Rogerborg · 2013-01-22 03:52 · Score: 1

The Slashdot "editors" were replaced a decade ago by Very Small Shell Scripts written by Rob Malda's frat buddies. You're as well trying to win an argument with ELIZA.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:preprocessor?? by tgd · 2013-01-22 03:53 · Score: 2

"... Megaupload, Mega's preprocessor."
I expect this means "predecessor". The editors are actually paid in money to click "submit" without reading or understanding the articles?
Your reply generated another ad view.
The editor's job was done.
Re:preprocessor?? by 1u3hr · 2013-01-22 05:36 · Score: 1

Your reply generated another ad view.
Not one seen by me anyway. I put up with the ads here till they started to do animated flash.
Re:preprocessor?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 11:06 · Score: 0

#DEFINE AES ROT13
Re:preprocessor?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 12:04 · Score: 0

"Sometimes we let a lot of stupid mistakes through to our website. These things are out of our control. We apologize for the incompetence."

What did he expect? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:11 · Score: 0

"On this front, reader mask.of.sanity points out a tool in development called MegaCracker that could reveal passwords as users sign up for the site."

He has pissed off America, what did he expect?

On the other hand, it could be a data gathering exercise.

Where do I get a Mega preprocessor? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:14 · Score: 0

Every one need a preprocessor...

Re:Where do I get a Mega preprocessor? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 03:01 · Score: 0

You have to Megadownload one.

Chrome warns of an invalid certificate by davecb · 2013-01-22 02:15 · Score: 1

Alas, Chrome of course won't tell me what is invalid, and neither firefox nor midori see a problem at all. This is accessing the site from Toronto, Ontario, via Rogers Cable.

--
davecb@spamcop.net

Re:Chrome warns of an invalid certificate by cbiltcliffe · 2013-01-24 07:57 · Score: 1

Weird. Chrome here, and it works fine. Of course, I'm not on Rogers, the ISP that packet inspects your traffic, to perform the "service" of telling you your computer is infected with malware before they ever get any complaints....

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......

Read the description of MEGA and was disappointed by Omnifarious · 2013-01-22 02:15 · Score: 1

Seriously, I just spent a bunch of time playing with Tahoe-LAFS. And while it's a bit tricky to get running, it's a far better service in terms of security than MEGA is. The only thing it's missing is a front-end that allows it to use random cloud storage providers for its storage. And that's being written as we speak.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

All about deniability by Melakh · 2013-01-22 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who cares if you can intercept the private encryption key (not often you get to say that) - seriously, noone with a brain is going to be uploading sensitive data to Mega and expecting them to take care of it. There are no multinationals sitting in the wings waiting to outsource storage of their customer's credit card numbers to Mega. This is just supposed to be Megaupload minus the ability for the recording industry to demand all copies of the same file get deleted and minus the ability for the FBI to be able to ask Mega a question and get an answer about what's stored.

Re:All about deniability by wispoftow · 2013-01-22 02:31 · Score: 0

I agree with you. But I find myself in the "legitimate user camp": I want easy online storage and serving, but under the fundamental premise that I am the only one who can control who sees what.
Re:All about deniability by flyingfsck · 2013-01-22 03:24 · Score: 1

Yup, it doesn't matter that the encryption is flawed. What is not flawed is that the same file, uploaded by different people, will result in a different sequence of bits. Therefore, there is no easy way for the **AA or any *** to compare files on the site with other files and come up with a list of 'infinging' files. The purpose of the encryption is really just scrambling and for that it is probably good enough.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:All about deniability by Tom · 2013-01-22 22:42 · Score: 2

You should care.
One, if what the idiot co-founder said in the update is true, Mega can decrypt your data. Which means their deniability just died and they will be on the hook, which means they are very likely to give your data to law enforcement in order to get out of everything.
Two, a fantastic and fairly neutral german article outlines the impact on the markets and musings on some more philosophical backgrounds. The TL;DR version is that Kim is pretty much the same as the banksters we want to see in jail for the financial crisis - he takes an artificially scarce commodity he doesn't own (data in his case, money for the banksters) and creates a mechanism through which it gets artificially inflated (sharing / bubble of complex financial products) with the purpose of making a profit for himself, ignoring the devastating effect that inflation has on the base value for small market participants.
Or if even that is too long for you: Kim will make money, big musicians, movies, etc. won't really care, small artists and smaller movies will suffer.
As much as the truth hurts, but if you want to support small artists, then iTunes does more for them then Mega will. You'll need to do a bit of research to verify that, but it'll be enlightening. I applaud the Pirate Bay for realizing their effect and trying to undo it with their recent initiatives.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Use the Linus back up method instead. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:23 · Score: 0

Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;) , Linus Torvalds.

Not just Mega by wispoftow · 2013-01-22 02:27 · Score: 1

FTA:
"If they had bothered to read that they would have seen that we basically state exactly what they are accusing us of as possible attack vectors plus some others they are not accusing us of," said Ortmann. "All of these SSL-related attacks do no apply specifically to us. They apply to companies with equally high security requirements or even higher requirements."

And that just about sums it up for me.

Kim Dotcom by SexToyDr · 2013-01-22 02:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

I was shocked to learn how much money this guy made the first time around...I suppose he hasn't learned his lesson. I agree with eldavojohn, though; who cares about this guy?

--
Enhancing married romance!

Re:Kim Dotcom by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:55 · Score: 0

What lesson is that? Get busted, and they still let you live in a mansion?
Re:Kim Dotcom by Sloppy · 2013-01-22 04:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was shocked to learn how much money this guy made the first time around...I suppose he hasn't learned his lesson.

Did the person who wrote the second half of that sentence, ever read the first part? Because the first part of your sentence says exactly what the lesson was, and Dotcom trying again is evidence that he did learn it.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Kim Dotcom by SethJohnson · 2013-01-22 05:42 · Score: 1

I'm not sure which 'first time around' you're referring to here... The pump-and-dump ponzi scheme he ran during the late nineties dot-com bubble or the MegaUpload website he ran in the later oughts? Both operations paid him handsomely, and he so far only did a short stint in jail on the stock fraud, but the case is pending against him on the MegaUpload website. He's got more money than OJ Simpson did when he hired his legal 'dream team', so there's a chance he might avoid prosecution for MegaUpload.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Re:Kim Dotcom by Seeteufel · 2013-01-22 08:18 · Score: 1

I don't think so, after all this person has the hacker community against him. He cratered his reputation so many times. He did wrong and he deserves to get jailed. He is not only a suspected criminal but an annoyance, a shame for his nation.
Re:Kim Dotcom by SethJohnson · 2013-01-23 04:40 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong here, I think Kim is a criminal and deserves to spend time behind bars.

He probably expects he will spend some more time in prison, and he's launching this service quickly while he still has his illicit capital from MegaUpload and before he has to go to prison for running it. While he's in prison, the new Mega service will become lucrative and he'll still be rich when he gets out of prison.

Seth

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Re:Kim Dotcom by Tuoqui · 2013-01-23 06:02 · Score: 1

Unless he gets extradited to the US which given how NZers and the world responded to how the US went about this including using foreign intelligence agencies to prosecute a civil court matter... I really dont think it's gonna happen.
Best way to avoid prosecution on some matter is to stay out of the reach of those who want you. Particularly if those crimes are minor or non-existant in the eyes of the public. Many people who arent of the MAFIAA persuasion believe he's the victim and that is hard to overcome even with the big media's propeganda machine.

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused

Re:Read the description of MEGA and was disappoint by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:36 · Score: 0

eh, I don't see what's so special about it. The benefit of Mega is access to your data from anywhere. All you need is a browser. T-LAFS requires filesystem driver and a gateway service upload. To access your data from other devices, you have to remotely access a gateway which may not be under your control, which mean ensuring the confidentiality and integrity of your data goes out the window.

Nitpicking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:42 · Score: 1

This does seem to be nit picking. The only real issue here is the XSS attack which as long as they fix quickly, isn't too bad. Compared to most sites I've seen this is a damned fort.

All data is encrypted before being uploaded so the SSL encryption is only needed to protect user login. I've just checked and it appears to be using 2048-bit encryption (for login at least) so it's either been fixed or wasn't an issue in the first place.

Mega could allow people to change passwords by decrypting the data with their current password and then encrypting it again with a new key and password. Not exactly a massive security problem though, now if they were stored in plain text...

Re:Read the description of MEGA and was disappoint by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:45 · Score: 0

In the mean time, you can just configure ownCloud to store data on a FUSE-mounted Tahoe-LAFS filesystem.

Password overuse by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:49 · Score: 2, Funny

There is a global shortage of passwords as we have reached peak passwords. It is time to find alternative ways to secure our security.

You would really... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 02:54 · Score: 0

be stupid to use his service.

We should help him by onyxruby · 2013-01-22 03:22 · Score: 1

The community seems quite interested in using his services and seeing that he beat his legal case. I think it is reasonable that the community help Kim DotCom out on this. He's trying to protect your data as much as his ass, which is more than a lot of companies do.

Instead of bitching and moaning about what's wrong, we should help him fix it. Give Kim security, consider it a mutual internet fuck you to those that deserve it.

JavaScript by RedHackTea · 2013-01-22 03:40 · Score: 1

In the article, is this what they're referring to or is it another script file? https://eu.static.mega.co.nz/keygen.js

--
The G

Re:Read the description of MEGA and was disappoint by Omnifarious · 2013-01-22 03:50 · Score: 1

You can access the gateway with a web browser if you want to. And the issue of whether or not the gateway is under your control is entirely up to you. It would be possible to write a gateway for a smart phone or DD-WRT.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop

Maybe I'm Just Paranoid by RoknrolZombie · 2013-01-22 03:51 · Score: 0

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but what's the likelihood that Kim Dotcom has been bought? Doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange that after all of the bullshit he went through he's effectively opening the exact same business (with no fear, I might add)? Were I to use cloud storage (I don't) and if I were to use it for hosting illegal files, I would be concerned that my information is being made available directly to the feds.

Re:Maybe I'm Just Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 04:39 · Score: 0

The implementation is different, and seems to be based directly around not giving the US a single crumb with which to launch a case against him. Of course it could be a front. But if you do some research on Dotcom, he seems exactly like the type of asshole to do this.

Re:Taking the game to the opposition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 04:01 · Score: 1

Thanks for that, FBI_disinformation_guy but you really should log on to post.

No one really gets it by JWW · 2013-01-22 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The security does not have to be good. The purpose of Mega is to disable the RIAA and MPAA's abilities to see what is shared.

It doesn't matter how bad the encryption is. If the MPAA or RIAA break the encryption on Mega's files they are violating the DMCA plain and simple.

Mega is using the RIAA and MPAA's weapons against them.

Re:No one really gets it by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-22 05:46 · Score: 1

What if they just get someone to share content with them and find out it's a DVD of the latest Hollywood flick?

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:No one really gets it by Nyder · 2013-01-22 06:30 · Score: 1

The security does not have to be good. The purpose of Mega is to disable the RIAA and MPAA's abilities to see what is shared.
It doesn't matter how bad the encryption is. If the MPAA or RIAA break the encryption on Mega's files they are violating the DMCA plain and simple.
Mega is using the RIAA and MPAA's weapons against them.
Except they will be, or are probably lobbying an extension that will allow them to break DMCA in search of copyright infringers.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:No one really gets it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 06:40 · Score: 0

If they actively upload the file (e.g. via an agent), aren't they saying OK to distribution in this way?
Re:No one really gets it by synapse7 · 2013-01-22 06:44 · Score: 1

Right, tell that to the swat team when they are walking out the door with your equipment.
Re:No one really gets it by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-01-22 07:25 · Score: 1

What? No, it is not. The *IAA have the FBI do their dirty work. Breaking encryption might require a warrant, if you're lucky. But the basic problem with something like Mega is that in order to be successful with those sharing copyrighted media, people have to know how to get the files they are looking for. Someone has to index the files stored on Mega. For each tracker, download each file check the contest with the key provided, then submit the dcma request.
The purpose is supposed to be to give Mega plausible deniability over what is stored on their site. Third parties might know which files are copyrighted, but mega itself doesn't want to know. So they can't shut down Mega for knowingly violating copyright. With deduplication, they'll have to take down all duplicates as well in order to stay kosher.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:No one really gets it by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-22 07:32 · Score: 1

What I'm saying is, if they register as a regular individual streaming content and find the latest Hollywood release, that still makes them culpable.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:No one really gets it by westlake · 2013-01-22 07:57 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter how bad the encryption is. If the MPAA or RIAA break the encryption on Mega's files they are violating the DMCA plain and simple.
I am not a lawyer.
But I'm betting if you don't have a license to distribute a copyrighted work, you can't claim the protection of the DMCA when your illegal distribution of the work is exposed.
Re:No one really gets it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 10:50 · Score: 0

You're absolutely right. You're not a lawyer.
Re:No one really gets it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 10:55 · Score: 0

They don't have to break the encryption. They just have to hash an "infringing" file and legally (or otherwise) force Mega to give them the data of everybody who up- or downloaded a file with the same hash.
Re:No one really gets it by Tuoqui · 2013-01-22 11:46 · Score: 1

I'm sure that applying encryption would count as 'DRM' of sort... and under many DMCA like laws breaking any DRM scheme is grounds for a prison sentence :)

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Re:No one really gets it by tacokill · 2013-01-22 15:04 · Score: 1

This is the only post that seems to get it. Per the DMCA, breaking encryption - of ANY strength - is against the law. MPAA and RIAA can not crack the files and then use them as evidence. Neither can law enforcement (without a warrant / probable cause). If they do, it won't be allowed as evidence in court (unclean hands).

I am sad/shocked/disappointed that Slashdot can't see the genius this. Like the parent said, it doesn't have to be "good" encryption. It just has to be encryption. ROT13 would work just as well....
Re:No one really gets it by master5o1 · 2013-01-22 19:02 · Score: 1

They won't be able to test the hash because the files stored will be encrypted and the hashes of those files are calculated after the encryption.

--
signature is pants

False alarm by davidwr · 2013-01-22 04:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's frequently wrong to assume malice when getting sloppy in a rush to deliver explains everything.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:False alarm by genik76 · 2013-01-22 10:21 · Score: 1

But occassionally there some real malice, which is then easy to explain away with the rush. The FBI has a history of hiring cybercriminals as undercover agents (e.g. Kevin Poulsen, or the operators of DarkMarket, a cybercrime forum where the FBI had admin rights after getting the forum head to co-operate).
Re:False alarm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 18:50 · Score: 0

Exactly.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which could be explained by incompetence. Especially in the software world.

Deniability by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 04:51 · Score: 0

"But there are suspicions Mega is handing out encryption keys to users and touting strong security to cover its own back."

Too lazy to log in to post this or find the source for what I'm about to say when the submitter and editors were obviously extremely lazy with this submission. But Kim Dotcom literally said that this was all about deniability on their part. So guess what geniuses, your suspicions are true. Which changes what, exactly?

Security problems? surely you jest! by xyourfacekillerx · 2013-01-22 04:56 · Score: 1

I thought pirates were good, ethical people, with an organic set of humanistic, good-willed principles that precluded. And people surely motivated by that philosophy to share unlicensed programs and movies (sorry, I mean information) would not exploit security features of the site that could compromise the security of visitors to that site. Right? Right guys? Copyright holders are bad and pirates are ethically superior, right??

No, no, I'm not trolling. More like making a sarcastic observation. 1000 threads at /. about the self-righteous "information is free" movement, it's amazing how many anyone can adopt that attitude or moral pride without shame given events such as this.

Re:Security problems? surely you jest! by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-22 05:50 · Score: 1

Slashdot's content-lifting culture at it again. Always trying to rationalize what they do while simultaneously crying about the job market because people won't pay them good money for their efforts.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Security problems? surely you jest! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 06:14 · Score: 0

Go away, and take your strawman with you.
Re:Security problems? surely you jest! by spire3661 · 2013-01-22 07:47 · Score: 2

Because the other side isnt constantly moving to goal posts? IMHO any work that doesnt fall back into the public domain as the law was written when the work was created is FRAUD. Save your righteousness for people who deserve it.

--
Good-bye

Socking! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 06:05 · Score: 0

You found bugs in beta software? That is just shocking!

Really scary part is... by X.25 · 2013-01-22 07:27 · Score: 1

... that seemingly random attention whores with no idea what they are talking about are called "security professionals".

Even scarier is that they somehow get their place in media and people end up listening to them.

ok then.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 07:35 · Score: 0

Why even have encryption at all then? Big fucking waste of time if we go by your thinking.

Security doesn't matter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 08:01 · Score: 0

If you want to give your data to a borderline egomaniac sociopathic hedonistic criminal, who apparently has problems with the US FBI and - if some Commentary is to be believed - with certain branches of Mafia, be my guest. Just don't come back whining later (again)..

Re:Security doesn't matter.. by fuzzytv · 2013-01-22 10:10 · Score: 1

Sure, because a mere fact that someone was raided by FBI is a proof that he's a criminal. And let's trust some unnamed Commentary who claims that the raided person is linked to a certain (yet unnamed) branches of Mafia. Not to be prudent, but many former US presidents were accused of Mafia links and relations too.
Re:Security doesn't matter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:10 · Score: 0

if you'd be german you'd know how criminal he already was in Germany even before he entered the 'world' stage.. Did you ever ask why he's residing in NZ? maybe because he already fled germany to hongkong to avoid prosecution in germany? and then he fled hongkong in order to avoid prosecution and mafia there? Or how he was so stupid to cheat in an illegal street race through europe even though he knew that very ... honorable .. gentlemen where competing with him?
Re:Security doesn't matter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:13 · Score: 0

or let other tell you: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz

Encrypt Thyself by edibobb · 2013-01-22 08:40 · Score: 1

He's encrypting it to make it legal for his company to accept unauthorized music and movies. If you want security, encrypt before you upload.

omg by Tom · 2013-01-22 10:31 · Score: 1

Read the update on the article as well. The guys are entirely clueless about security and encryption.

TFA is correct. This isn't a few minor issues. The main feature of the service is broken, and if what they say in the update is true and not just clueless, then law enforcement can and will get at your data, too.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Kim Dotcom "arrested" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 12:58 · Score: 0

Kim Dotcom “arrested” during Mega presentation
http://goo.gl/OWDSH

Except it's true by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-22 17:47 · Score: 0

You didn't contradict a single thing I said, only make a false claim in the hope nobody would read it.

Read it, it's absolutely true. That's what his aim is here, run a system, also called 'mega', but this time within DMCA and hope he can fuzzy the difference between the two megas.

Slashdot Mirror

Kim Dotcom's Mega Fileshare Service Riddled With Security Holes

151 comments