Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Secure, Web-based E-mail

Posted by Hemos on from the throw-away-the-hotmail-account dept.

Cal Godot writes "I've come across this interesting company, HUSMAIL.COM, that provides secure, encrypted, web-based email. They're pretty new, still working out a few kinks, and want people to take a look. (Bug reports should be sent to bugs@hushmail.com, by the way.) The URL is https://www.hushmail.com The whole thing works via a Java applet, and requires the latest-greatest web browsers. Source code is also availible. It's all built around public/private key encryption, using a 1024-bit Diffie-Helman scheme. "

76 comments

  1. Intendended audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed - but don't forget that this is written for Joe and Sally Sixpack - and for them this is high tech and hushmail will make some money.

    Personally, I do not care for any centralized services no matter how 'secure'. Makes it way too easy to for Big Brother to collect data.

    Security by encryption? Sure, as long as you use sufficiently random one time pad...

  2. Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, now my spam and pr0n ads can't get intercepted by the Bad People.

    Honestly, what's the point of this? I think it's a good "because I can" project, but there's no real target audience that I can see. Web email = throwaway account = unsecure.

  3. What's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the difference between a brute-force attack and a dictionary attack?

    1. Re:What's the difference by crisper · · Score: 1

      I dont think there is much difference at all. Dictionary is trying all words and combos on a password over and over, brute force is doing the same except adding numbers and characters. I think they are one in the same.

  4. Re:Vunerabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone know how to setup the source with Apache? Never had to setup java applets..

  5. Where's the difference??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A brute force attack is when you attempt to exhaust the entire solution space. Example: If you were to brute force a typical 4 digit PIN, you would try 0000, 0001, 0002, ..., 9998, 9999 since you know it HAS to be one of those 10,000 possibilities.

    A dictionary attack is when you take a long list of common words and check if any of them works as the password.

    so please explain to me how testing a long list of words is anyless a brute-force attack than testing a long list of numbers? i will help you out a little, there is no real difference! just because the deffinition of elements is different dosent make the method of attack any different.

    1. Re:Where's the difference??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      so please explain to me how testing a long list of words is anyless a brute-force attack than testing a long list of numbers? i will help you out a little, there is no real difference! just because the deffinition of elements is different dosent make the method of attack any different.

      I still tend to think of the 2 attacks as being different. A brute force attack has the explicit goal of trying every conceivable combination in the keyspace while a dictionary attack has the explicit goal of only testing a very restricted subset of that space. Take a discrete math course and these concepts will become clear.

      Example: L0phtCrack, which cracks NT passwords, takes both approaches. It comes with a dictionary about 27000 words long of the most common passwords. The program first encrypts and tests all the words in that dictionary against the NT password list. Failing that, it then tries a brute force attack on the remaining passwords: a, aa, aaa, aaaa, aaaaa, aaaaaa, aaaaaaa, ab, aab, aaab, etc, with the goal of exhausting the keyspace.

      Sure, you could generate a dictionary with all (2^7)^7 (or however many) possibilities, and then say that (dictionary attack) = (brute force attack) in this case, but that would be silly, now wouldn't it?

    2. Re:Where's the difference??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      so please explain to me how testing a long list of words is anyless a brute-force attack than testing a long list of numbers?

      Firstly, the difference is that "brute force attack" and "dictionary attack" are commonly used terms. You could also call your HD space "memory", and it's conceptually (partly) correct, but it's technically wrong.

      The important difference is that the list of "words" is not "short" as far as a decent computer is concerned, but the set of possible combinations is.

      i will help you out a little, there is no real difference! just because the deffinition of elements is different dosent make the method of attack any different.

      The method of attack is similar, but the level of effectiveness is somewhat different. If I have your /etc/passwd file containing weak passwords, I can crack them with a dictionary attack. OTOH, to crack them with a brute force attack would require a supercomputer.

      -- Donovan

  6. real security experts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just lost my faith in these guys, real security experts should know the difference between brute-force and dictionary attacks.

    if you think you know the difference then please explain it to us. in reality there is no difference between a brute-force attack and a dictionary attack. the algorithm used is exactly the same the only thing that is different is the elements compared. if you think this is enough to make them totally seperate attacks then you must also have a very long list of all the different types of brute-force attacks that aren't really brute-force attacks because they use different types of elements.

    1. Re:real security experts? by elflord · · Score: 1
      the algorithm used is exactly the same the only thing that is different is the elements compared.

      There is an enormous difference between trying all possible combinations, and trying a few selected combinations.

      you must also have a very long list of all the different types of brute-force attacks that aren't really brute-force attacks because they use different types of elements.

      Any attack that uses a selected set of elements ( eg "words" ) is a dictionary attack. A "dictionary attack" needn't just use a standard english dictionary, it is a list of intelligent guesses at user passwords. ( for example, slang words, obscenties , phrases, etc must be included for it to be effective )

      On the other hand, a brute force attack is distinct in that it uses all possible combinations.

    2. Re:real security experts? by Azul · · Score: 1

      The algorithm is similar, but there are a few practical differences.

      In dictionary attacks you usually take a few thousand words and then check them against every account in the server, hoping a small number of accounts will have its password set to any of those common words.

      In brute-force attacks, you typically try every possible combination of characters against only one account.

      Dictionary attacks are usually more useful to get some random accounts in a system, while brute-force attacks are typically used to get the password of one specific account (ie. root).

      Lets imagine you know all passwords are 8 characters long. With brute force attacks you usually make around (128 characters - 32 control codes) ^ 8 digits = 7.213.895.789.838.336 attempts (okay, usually less characters... but still). In dictionary attacks you usually try 10.000 passwords * 1000 accounts = 10.000.000 attempts.

      Dictionary attacks usually get you more accounts in less time, but usually not the ones you want (unless the sysadmin is stupid).

      I have no idea of how PGP *really* works, but I suppose that no one would ever use dictionary based attacks to decrypt PGP encrypted messages, since the private key is not a simple word. In this case you have to do brute-force with no optimization.

      In theory both methods are the same, dictionary means you just try highly used passwords, but they have their differences in practice.

      Alejo.

  7. Re:Looks sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that looked odd, so I thought I would try to call. I've had the phone or repeat dial for about 3 hours now and all I get is a busy signal. Somethings not right, but what could they be trying to do? It is only free email after all.

  8. Re:Hummm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read their webpage carefully you'd know that they allow users to setup a anonXXXX account, where X is a random number. With this account, they don't ask you for personal information, such as income.

  9. Re:Yes, they are still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The anonymizer (www.anonymizer.com i think..or is it www.anonymiser.com) tries to do it for you via the web. its the easiest way of remailing.

  10. Re:Doesn't work for me - firewalls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like firewalls kill it - works fine on
    a dialup, but not from IBM...

  11. Re:who's this for, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you people kidding me? Do you know what this means if what these guys say is true? It means I can send you a 1024-bit secure email without going to college for my "PGP in CS degree". PGP is an installation nightmare, and I can't use it with just anyone, only with other scientists.

    More power to 'em.

  12. Legal Policy questions about HushMail unanswered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find any leagalease about HushMail's
    policy concerning Subpenas and/or Court Ordered
    searches. Are they under US juristiction?

    For me (I'm no criminal) the ultimate test
    of Anonymity and Security would be the systems
    ability to deflect a full fledged FBI investigation.

    Nothing can beat a chain of CypherPunks remailers
    located in a series of Foreign Countries.

    Are chains of Anonymous Remailers still available?

    How can I decouple my ISP assigned IP address
    from my personal identity? I suppose a Free
    ISP service accessible from a pay telephone
    might work. Any other ideas?

  13. Secure? Not enough for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any company from NATO countries that claim to have *ANY* secure networking software, algorithm, protocol for sale *CANNOT* be trusted.

    Unless you don't mind the NSA, FBI, CIA, SIS(UK), SIS(PT), etc, etc smooping through your data.

    1. Re:Secure? Not enough for me! by atw · · Score: 1

      Compile source and make a binary comparison. Granted, they used standard Java distribution or alternatively you may ask them to tell which compiled did they use. This is not the problem. Problem is that THEY have all your keys, they may log all your plaintext Emails (you are gonna mail some of your friends in plaintext, right?)

      AtW,
      http://www.investigatio.com

      --
      alexc
      Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
    2. Re:Secure? Not enough for me! by lazarusL · · Score: 1

      Unless the source is open, you've inspected it and trust it, and ...

      ... you somehow know they're using the source you have inspected. I'm not sure how to ensure the last part though.

      (BTW, these people don't appear to be *selling* anything other than advertising.)

  14. Re:Vunerabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, theirs a "secure send" option, which works if you send email to other @hushmail.com users. It uses their public key. So this service actually can be used to send 100% secure email, provided you're sending it to another hushmail user. I don't think this is useless, for people who want to send mail while at work, this is a great service.

  15. Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2
    So what's the difference between a brute-force attack and a dictionary attack?

    A brute force attack is when you attempt to exhaust the entire solution space. Example: If you were to brute force a typical 4 digit PIN, you would try 0000, 0001, 0002, ..., 9998, 9999 since you know it HAS to be one of those 10,000 possibilities.

    A dictionary attack is when you take a long list of common words and check if any of them works as the password.

  16. Yes, they are still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3
    Are chains of Anonymous Remailers still available?

    Oh my, yes! Go here for lots of up-to-the-minute stats:
    http://anon.efga.org/~rlist/
    (As an aside, it really irritates me when people think remailers don't exit anymore because anon.penet.fi went away a long time ago.)

  17. Doesn't work for me. by dmd · · Score: 0

    After generating entropy and entering my passphrase, I get:

    "I'm sorry, there has been an error. Please try again later."




    --

  18. Re:SMAIL.ORG by gavinhall · · Score: 1

    Posted by NJViking:

    Hmm.. neither of those sites appear to be working.

    -= NJV =-

  19. Vunerabilities by Matts · · Score: 4

    The exploits in all the other web based email systems (particularly hotmail, although I suspect they are just targeted because they are big) have been based on browser bugs, and Javascript deficiencies. What's to say that something running as Java won't suffer from similar problems? I know there's the sandbox there, but will that be enough (i.e. there might be bugs in their server configuration or any other possible point of entry)? And do enough people care?

    For me, I don't care about the security of my email, just that I can get it 24/7 and quickly (which is why I dumped hotmail for joymail). I honestly don't think that many people will care enough to use Java for their email. Especially not considering how slow it is. Still, I might just create an account, just for a laugh...

    Matt.


    perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

    --

    Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
    1. Re:Vunerabilities by Inferno_Man · · Score: 1

      It's not really secure, anyway. Encrypting the
      data between your PC and their server only protects from a sniffer between your PC and their
      server. What about the long, circuitous SMTP path that the email took from the sender to their server? That's all plaintext, open to sniffers as well.

      The door's reinforced titanium, but someone left the window open. Client to client PGP still looks like the answer.

      Inferno Man

  20. Diffie-Hellman insecure by jnik · · Score: 2
    As I recall, Diffie-Hellman has a rather serious vulnerability in it, rendering it far less secure than it was supposed to be.

    Short story is that the DH encryption problem really isn't the same as the knapsack problem--some unimportant simplifications turned out to be important.

  21. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by Rendus · · Score: 1

    I believe you miunderstood the previous poster. He meant you can't use a POP3 client to read mail, which almost no free e-mail services offer, while you are refering to using Hotmail or Yahoo! to retrieve POP3 mail, which practically any free e-mail service under the sun offers.

    In other words, you both are correct.

  22. Re:Looks sketchy by Rendus · · Score: 1

    I used to use MailExcite for my domains due to the spam I KNEW I would get (do a whois on my domain, the-corridor.com, for example). Also, they're a privacy oriented company, it's only natural for them to use public mail servers for e-mail.

    Now, if they were at aol.com, I'd be nervous.

  23. Re:JAPH.... by way_out · · Score: 1

    "perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)' "


    Uhhm... shouldn't that be:

    "perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just\)'"

    (Note the *last* "\")

  24. Re:Hummm..... by A+well+known+coward · · Score: 1

    I understand their need to make a living. Yet, they don't mention anything about it being for statistical purposes. Also, anytime I see the "annual income" box in a web form, it is an optional field, but theirs is required.

  25. Hummm..... by A+well+known+coward · · Score: 5

    I tried to set-up an account just to see what they're all about. For a company that is so interested in the users' privicy, they sure ask you a lot of personal questions. For example, why would they need to know people's income?

    BTW, what are the chances of /. running a email redirecting service? I wouldn't mind paying 50 bucks or so to support /. while getting an "@slashdot.org" address. :)

    1. Re:Hummm..... by Overt+Coward · · Score: 1

      > For example, why would they need to know
      > people's income?

      Probably because they want to make their living
      by selling advertising -- they can get better
      rates with demographic information that lets the
      advertisers know their target audience.

      I haven't read their privacy policy yet, but most
      sites that ask for this information expicitly
      state that it is only used for statistical
      pruposes (aggregate information).

    2. Re:Hummm..... by Le+douanier · · Score: 1


      Having a @slashdot.org address would really be cool, but will Rob have enough H/W and Bandwidth to make it work properly (because I'm there are a lot of people that would be interested)?

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  26. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by perfecto · · Score: 1
    only options they are charging for are POP access and email forwarding, something that not even hotmail and yahoo.mail offer.

    yahoo most certainly does have pop access and i believe hotmail does as well.

    "The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."

    --

    --
    And Justice for None
  27. What about ITAR? by Great_Jehovah · · Score: 1

    NSI says the company is in Texas and yet they are allowing open download of encryption software including source. Doesn't this violate ITAR?

    1. Re:What about ITAR? by griffjon · · Score: 1

      IT may be officially in Canada, but the phone contacts are to Austin, Texas area codes, and sitting in the line for StarWars, these folks came by and distributed fliers advertising hushmail.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    2. Re:What about ITAR? by griffjon · · Score: 1

      Ah, here's the scoop. Hushmail is part of Hush Communications, www.hushcom.com. Hush Communications is in Canada, their /marketing/ division, however, is in Austin.

      "if you wish to contact us, please send email to info@hushcom.com. We may also be reached at our marketing headquarters in Austin, Texas, at (512)-472-4630, or via FAX at (512)-472-4631. To reach our other offices, email to the above address will be routed accordingly, or alternately you may FAX us at (264)-497-2177 (Anguilla, BWI office) or (604)-608-0999 (Vancouver, Canada office). "

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    3. Re:What about ITAR? by iXus · · Score: 1

      www.hushmail.com is located in Canada.

      The source is on cypherpunks.ai which is located in Anguilla (small island in the Carribean).

  28. Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddress? by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1


    Those bastards lured me in with free Pop access and email forwarding and then switched to 'offering' every little option at a dollar a month each. They stayed free long enough to let people become reasonably dependent upon them, and then made their move.

    Lesson learned, I reckon.

    These guys could do the same. "Look!" "We're free! We're secure! We have no heads!"

    Whatever they do is just a bit of flash to get you to click on their banner ads, intentionally or otherwise. Inevitably, they will look into more annoying ways to get you to click on even more banner ads, making sure it takes a good long time for you to read even a single message so their sponsors know you're soaking in all that advertising.

    I understand and sympathize with the motivation for this, but have no interest in taking part in their little business.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  29. They are providing source by edgy · · Score: 3

    Some people here posted about not trusting the Java app to be secure. Apparently, they've already thought of that. They seem to "get it" as far as security. Here's an excerpt from the FAQ page:


    How can it be proved that the HushMail system is actually secure?

    Simply put, the most important aspect of any computer security system is the ability for lots people to test it as well as possible. The Java Source Code of HushMail is available to everyone, free. Security experts worldwide have the unrestricted ability to try and find any security holes. We are completely open to this form of peer review, as we believe this makes for the strongest systems available today. Our source code is open to you. Please view it at your leisure. It can be found at http://www.cypherpunks.ai/~hush/hush-src.102.zip. In addition, a description of the functionality of the system is available here.


    I have at least one reason I would use something like this: If I want an anonymous account that can't be traced back to me in case I don't want my job or people I know knowing it's me. This is an easy way of doing it without needing an anonymous remailer.

  30. For anyone who requires Web-based email by jsm · · Score: 3
    you'd think that people who cared enough about their privacy to want to strong-encrypt their email would just install PGP on their local system and be done with it, rather than trusting a third party to take care of the encryption for them.

    Not everyone has a local system to install PGP onto.

    Who's this for? The same crowd that uses Yahoo mail, hotmail, etc. Joke all you want, but there are legitimate uses. Notably, for people who can't afford to own a computer and must do all online activity through browsers at libraries, schools, cafes, etc. You'd be surprised how many homeless people have an active online presence.

    Granted, they'll never be secure as long as they trust this third party to handle their encryption. But it's a couple steps better than unencrypted Web-based email.

    I'm really glad this is happening. With luck, all the other Web-based email services will add encryption too, at least in the mail that gets sent out. The sooner we have a critical mass of the email world using encryption, the sooner it will be considered standard.

  31. Looks sketchy by cjsnell · · Score: 3

    Here's an excerpt their WHOIS db entry:

    Domain Name: HUSHMAIL.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Hush Communications, Admin acct. (HC507-ORG) hushadmn@HOTMAIL.COM
    (512)-441-0205
    Fax- (512)-441-8052
    Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
    Hush Communications, Tech acct. (HC508-ORG) hushtech@YAHOO.COM
    (512)-441-0205
    Fax- (512)-441-8052
    Billing Contact:
    Hush Communications, Admin acct. (HC507-ORG) hushadmn@HOTMAIL.COM
    (512)-441-0205
    Fax- (512)-441-8052


    Note the Hotmail and Yahoo accounts listed.

  32. Good to see by Kenshiro · · Score: 1

    I do have a few questions about the source (to wipe a message from memory, they overwrite with a
    *static* *number* of -'s, and I don't see where they limit the size of the message to that size...
    Just as an example.)

    But still, I see this as a big step up from, say, hotmail. No passwords being sent in the clear
    accross the net... (is that the case for hotmail? I'm not sure - never used it. :)
    Maybe someone'll become ambitious and work in some cryptix code so you *could* send encrypted mail to
    non-hush users...

    Of course, I tried to create an account twice and isn't working. Not that I have use for such an
    account.

  33. Trust problems by spark · · Score: 1

    1. Dictionary attack on your encrypted private key by a Hushmail employee. You're being asked to trust Hushmail to prevent this.

    2. Outside attacker hacks Hushmail, gets your encrypted private key, runs dictionary attack. You're being asked to trust Hushmail to prevent this.

    3. You access Hushmail from some public machine, and the machine you're on pulls your decrypted private key right out of the Hushmail applet.

    1. Re:Trust problems by jmanoog · · Score: 1


      if MS couldn't get Y2k compliance right, why would you expect them to fare better with the thorny problems of trusted systems?

      as a general note: a truly "secure" system is a rarity. remember all the things you're trusting on an "end-to-end" link. it's not just one machine to another. even if you have an encrypted channel, you are trusting the integrity of your OS not to leave pages of your session in accessible memory, you're trusting that there's not a keystroke recorder logging your typing before it goes over the wire, you're assuming that your keyboard cable isn't connected w/a Y-adaptor to someone else's box (!), etc.

      anyways, i would just say that while IBM, sun, etc. have the research $$ to get this stuff right, there's no guarantee that they will, and i wouldn't expect it to be correct the first time.

      --
      -- jm3 * john manoogian III
    2. Re:Trust problems by ilyah · · Score: 1

      Actually, I see this as the thing that will make me not want to use hushmail at all for any secure transactions. I can trust secure point-to-point communications, I can trust a good remailer chain. But to trust a small company, that's sketch. If this was being done by Microsoft or IBM or Sun I would trust it -- these are big guys who have enough people to make sure that stuff is secure, have enough expertise to do it right the first time (and not, like someone noticed, use the Date/Time as the seed for the random num generator), and someone who is going to watch the system very closely to make sure that they themselves never have the ability to read the messages or else they'd be involved in a major PR nightmare. But hushmail has nothing to be afraid about, and they are not big enough to guarantee that they'd even tell people if they start getting investigated by the feds in whichever country they're located in.

      --
      -Ilya Haykinson
  34. Re:ha ha ! by bsduross · · Score: 1

    Yellow dog linux is very good, give it a try you'll be suprised

    --
    ------------------------------- duross@scnc.lesa.k12.mi.us * Brian DuRoss Webmaster - LESA - LAWMASC * http://scnc.les
  35. Big fat hairy deal by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    https://www.mailandnews.com has been offering this service for a long time. And they do news, too.

  36. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by Azul · · Score: 1

    (azul@azul)-(59/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:43pm)--
    (~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet mta-x1.yahoomail.com pop3
    Trying 205.180.60.117...
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.117: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.58: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.224: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.30: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.116: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.125: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.83: Connection refused
    telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
    (azul@azul)-(60/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:43pm)--
    (~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet pop3.yahoo.com pop3
    pop3.yahoo.com: Unknown host
    (azul@azul)-(61/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:44pm)--
    (~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet mail.yahoo.com pop3
    Trying 205.180.60.98...
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.98: Connection refused
    telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.97: Connection refused
    telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
    (azul@azul)-(62/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:44pm)--
    (~/html/newearth/newearth/src)--

    What's their POP3 server?

    Alejo.

  37. Re:Java - no thank you. by crisper · · Score: 2

    You know, the people who often write those little tid bits on the web page aren't usually the "security experts". They are most likely marketing people with no in depth understanding of the technology. Would you hold a job as a security consultant writing these things?? I dont think so, so let it be, you cant always be 100% correct, at least they let people know that they are somewhat protected from an attempt to crack their password. Most people do not know the difference between a brute-force attack and a dictionary attack, and they never will, nor will they ever need to, they just want to know they are protected, eve just a little bit

  38. Hushmail and FBI(etc)-oppressed nations by lazarusL · · Score: 1

    "I couldn't find any leagalease(sp) about HushMail's policy concerning Subpenas(sp) and/or Court Ordered searches."

    No legalese, but they did in fact seem to address this in their FAQ (even while making no specific committments.)

    From Hushmail's FAQ:

    "People in oppressed nations who need to get information out can use HushMail and not be tracked by their governments."

    Your reference to the FBI implies you are in the United States. The years I spent in that country certainly show it to be an "oppressed nation," (and becoming more so with the passage of time.)

    I agree, chained remailers are the best solution (and yes, of course they are still available.)

    Re: free ISP/pay telephones: Public access terminals such as libraries may be a lower-tech solution, especially if the site doesn't log identities with time of use. It still ties the message to a geographic location of course though, but offers the advantage of being a method accessible to greater numbers of users. After all, if "everyone" used anonymous/secure mailing on a routine basis, it would stand out less and would result in a more spook-unfriendly solution, which seems to be your desire. Two ends would be acheived, one, the volume the spooks would need to process (thereby increasing their budgets to the point of accountability,) and two, the "mindshare" in the general populus.

    All in all, while Hushmail may be far from a perfect solution, I am glad to see the trend toward increased awareness of privacy issues which it represents. Now what we need to do is educate the masses about the concept that weak privacy is worse than none at all (similar to the argument presented in PGP's docs in early versions.)

    BTW, I have not yet examined the source code for Hushmail (but also don't have an account there so can be "forgiven." :) )

    Have others here yet? Is it secure?

  39. (Brute force v. dictionary)&(Basic password se by lazarusL · · Score: 1
    I wrote a reply to an Anonymous Coward who did not seem to know the definition of "dictionary attack." Thinking about it, I realized that those filtering out AC's might want to read it as well, so I am including a link to it here.

    The difference. Pay attention this time

    And if that doesn't work, paste the following into your browser heheh.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/05/14/125 2215&pid=488#803

    (Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to educate ignorant AC's in the future? Nah, that's no solution.)

  40. The difference, in one word by lazarusL · · Score: 1

    "if you think you know the difference then please explain it to us."

    TIME.

    Since you're an AC, you wouldn't be filtering out AC comments, so I'll not include a pointer to my other replies. A password buys time, nothing more. If that time is sufficient, it is acceptable.

  41. Re:ZipLip.com doing the same thing by lazarusL · · Score: 1

    I just tried it. How does one send? Lynx doesn't offer me anything other than a "send.htm" link at the top, which appears to be an infinite loop.

  42. The difference. Pay attention this time by lazarusL · · Score: 2

    Example time. You have a password, say it's 8 characters long. For the sake of simplicity-of-example, let's say all characters must be alphabetic and upper-case. (Obviously, this is a very insecure system, but it's only for example.)

    Let's say you are lame, and choose P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D.

    If a cracker attempts to break your password by manually trying each word in a dictionary, this could take a long time, but would certainly succeed. If the same cracker automates the process by trying each word in a text file such as /usr/dict/words, it would take a lot less time, and also be certain to succeed.

    The above is known as a "dictionary attack" for obvious reasons. BTW, the more effective variations include subverting such common lame attempts to "improve" ths security of a password by changing letters to numbers (password -> passw0rd) by including these variants in the text file (or a tiny algorithm) so don't rely upon such.

    Let's say you instead chose N-X-B-Q-R-K-Y-V as your password.

    A dictionary attack would not succeed against such a password. Not only is N-X-B-Q-R-K-Y-V not to be found in Merriam-Webster, but it is not contained in any of the enhanced lists of "words" that are available for password cracking.

    Can a cracker defeat such a password? Certainly. Manually, it would require a ridiculous amount of typing (or phenomenal luck.) But how about an automated solution?

    It is trivial to write a routine to test A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A, then A-A-A-A-A-A-A-B, then A-A-A-A-A-A-A-C, and so on (which is known as a "brute force" attack, btw.) Writing the routine isn't the issue, running it is. The security of a password is based solely upon *how*long* it takes an attacker to guess it, right?

    A brute force attack, by definition, will always succeed, if carried out to completion, since, by definition, it tests every possible combination of characters. A dictionary attack will only succeed against "common" passwords (such as those containing only "words" (or variants) and their combinations (such as TASTY-BUG.)) The advantage of a dictionary attack over a brute force attack is that it takes a lot less time to run, and is likely to be successful much sooner, since most people, sadly enough, are either lazy or uneducated or perhaps both, and choose very insecure passwords/passphrases.

    Now, let's leave the world of this example, and enter the world of more security. Passwords would not be limited to just A through Z. We could add 0 through 9. Each additional possible character would increase the number of potential passwords exponentially, since each of the eight positions could now contain that character. We could then remove the case sensitivity requirement and add a through z. We could then add a number of "special characters." To add each of these to the above brute force routine would also be trivial, taking well under a minute. To actually run that routine through to completion however would become more and more time-consuming, to the point of being "unattainable" using (ahem) "today's technology" (especially if we removed the eight-character restriction.) For more on this principle, consult a math text book regarding "permutations." :-)

    Password "security" == Estimated-time-to-crack-it. A "good" password will protect longer than the data inside needs protection. "Foever" requires more than just a password/passphrase.

  43. Re:Anonymity and encryption are different by theyman · · Score: 1

    Except that they do offer the ability to set up an anonNNNNN account.

    --
    Well, well, well; three holes in the ground...
  44. Java - no thank you. by Skinka · · Score: 2

    My browser is unstable enough as it is.

    btw check what they say about passphrases: Note that the passphrase in our example is not a common phrase, such as a quote, a song lyric, or a general exclamation that could be compromised via hacker "brute-force" attacks.

    Just lost my faith in these guys, real security experts should know the difference between brute-force and dictionary attacks.

  45. Re:JAPH.... by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1

    No, the original is correct. The syntax q(blah) in Perl is a special syntax that quotes the string blah or whatever else is inside it. That's why he backslashes the first right parenthesis, so it doesn't terminate the string for the smiley, but the second one isn't escaped because it validly terminates the string.
    ----------

    --
    In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
  46. SMAIL.ORG by Nobelium · · Score: 1

    There is a web page smail.org which does the same. Secure Mail. This is not really a new thing. The domain name is a bit messed up right now, but I think going to https://secure.refract.com/smail/ also works.

    --
    -Nicholas Blasgen
  47. who's this for, again? by th0m · · Score: 4
    you'd think that people who cared enough about their privacy to want to strong-encrypt their email would just install PGP on their local system and be done with it, rather than trusting a third party to take care of the encryption for them.

    i'm sure the java solution performs the encryption locally and never sends anything plaintext to the hushmail server (otherwise what would be the point) but it seems to be more hassle than it's worth.

    i'm not saying this isn't useful; i'm just curious as to exactly what demographic they're aiming at. people who are already anal about their privacy will know how to do their own secure email; and people who don't go crazy about privacy and/or don't know how to use PGP will probably just go and use a more straightforward webmail service.

    --

    -- in china, chinese food is just called food.

  48. Standards by jkdufair · · Score: 2

    I set up an account, only to find that you can only encrypt to other husmail [sic] accounts. What about standards, folks? PGP, S/MIME? I really don't think we need another "patent pending" encryption system. I'm pleased to see they're using blowfish, but why not use PGP then? Doesn't PGP6 support blowfish?

    Jason Dufair
    "Those who know don't have the words to tell

    --

    Jason Dufair
    "Those who know don't have the words to tell
    and the ones with the words don't know too w
  49. ZipLip.com doing the same thing by tcp · · Score: 1

    Check out the website. Looks like more of the same.

    Todd

  50. Not really a secure e-mail... by MeanGene · · Score: 4

    Well, it looks more like a commodity web-based e-mail, but running on a SSL-enabled server. Their FAQ plainly states that only e-mail sent to another hushmail user is secure. Duh...

    PGP all the way!


    1. Re:Not really a secure e-mail... by virid · · Score: 1

      if you read a little more you'd see that its not just ssl but full 1024bit encryption

      --
      "The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
  51. Re:So what... by elf · · Score: 1

    I think you're mistaken, this isn't splitting hairs. They made a wildly inaccurate claim. They claim 'brute force' won't find a non dictionary word. But that's exactly what brute force is, brute force is testing EVERY possible combination.

    Sure their email may be secure vs a basic dictionary attack. But they're using "brute force" cause it's a buzz word, without even understanding what the phrase means. In any case, as has been pointed out, their intended audience won't know/care about the difference. ;*)

    -Michael

  52. JAPH.... by elf · · Score: 1

    perl -e 'print join " ",reverse split " ", ":-) hacker, Perl another Just"'

    Is their a better way?

    (of taking a string, reversing the space seperated fields, as opposed to reversing the fields themselves?)

    perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)' yields:
    tsuJ rehtona lreP rekcah, :-)

    Which may actually be the intended result. The one I listed yields:
    Just another Perl hacker, :-)


    Given the input string as he had it. Is their an easy way to get the result I got? (note I modified the input string a little...)
    Looking for short 1-liners here.

    -Michael

  53. Anonymity and encryption are different by Kaa · · Score: 3

    Anonymity doesn't have much to do with encryption. Just because they provide the encryption service does not mean that they don't keep logs of connections. If they do, a message, even encrypted, can be traced back to you quite easily.
    Until recently the simple way to be anonymous was to set up a hotmail account through www.anonymizer.com and access it only through the anonymizer. Unfortunately, this is broken now, although I'm sure it's easy to find a free e-mail service that works through the anonymizer.

    If you are interested in practical anonymity, check out www.zeroknowledge.com. Of course, there is a bunch of other resources on the net.

    Kaa

    --

    Kaa
    Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
  54. Security issues by iXus · · Score: 1

    I have looked at the source and there are some issues with it. For example: on connection setup the random number generator is seeded with the current date/time.

    I contacted them and they confirmed that these issues are known and that they are working on a new version.

  55. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by mustard · · Score: 1

    USA.net was free for years, and really, the only options they are charging for are POP access and email forwarding, something that not even hotmail and yahoo.mail offer. And these two services can be used and allow the user never to see usa.net's ads which is what pays for the service. No bother, if you have an Amex card, you can still use those two services free, they just move you to the amexmail server, which they host, and you keep your usa.net address. I've been a happy user of usa.net for years now, no problems for the price.

  56. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by mustard · · Score: 1

    This taken from Yahoo's email help desk from my account: "Can I use other Email (POP3) clients, like Eudora or Netscape Mail, to access my Yahoo! Mail account? As a web-based email service, Yahoo! Mail does not currently offer access to POP or SMTP servers. This means that you will not be able to use an external email client such as Netscape Mail, Eudora, or Outlook to access your Yahoo! Mail account. " I have checked Hotmail in the past and they are the same way. Granted, both all three services let you access pop accounts that are external and read mail through them, but USA.net is the only one I have found that lets you get your USA.net email from their pop service in to your own email client.

  57. So what... by harmonica · · Score: 1

    Splitting hairs... Testing all words in a dictionary is some form of an optimized brute force attack. I guess they made their point to the average user, don't take real-world passwords. Yepp, they didn't use the word 'hacker' in an appropriate way either. Just because someone wasn't able to employ perfect terminology doesn't mean the whole system doesn't work.

    1. Re:So what... by harmonica · · Score: 1

      I know the difference. It's just that this whole thread should be about the general approach of secure email on the web and maybe their implementation. I presume some clueless guy wrote this piece of text who had nothing to do with the actual system (which is bad enough, granted). BTW, I'm not sure if they've claimed that a password that is not in a dictionary cannot be found?! Where? Anyway, someone should point it out to them...

  58. ha ha ! by The_Jazzman · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how many people, but for once linux is ahed of the Mac... it seems that whilst the aforementioned mail company's site will work with Windoze and Linux, it's still not working with the Apple Macs...

  59. Re: Another Bait and Switch Like USA.NET/Netaddres by sennin · · Score: 1

    There are several freemail servers out there which offer web/pop3/forwarding e.g. http://www.emailaddresses.com -- usa.net is most certainly NOT the only one.

    Albeit slowly, both hotmail and yahoo can now be retrieved by any email client by using CWebMail http://www.cwebmail.com.

    Before beginning to charge for their POP3 access, usa.net's POP server performance was very unreliable -- timing out 50% of the time.

    Admittedly, usa.net's email forwarding service is the best out there, offering variable selective filtering to an unlimited number of addresses. It is good for setting up an intermediate forwarding router for web-hosted domains not having POP/IMAP facility available on full server or virtual server services e.g. http://www.esosoft.net. This is worth $1.00 per month -- otherwise there are many other free forwarding services out there -- some include Web/POP3 access, too.

    American Express bought a huge chunk of and a large seat on the board so it is not surprising that usa.net started charging for these basic services (or giving them for free to AMEX card holders).

    sennin