You are describing symmetric encryption where both parties have the same key. There is something called asymmetric encryption that solves this. Basically you have a public key and a private key. You can give your public key to youtube, they can use that key to encrypt the symmetric key that will be used for the actual communication. The only way to decrypt the symmetric key is by using your private key, which is only known to you. So youtube can safely send it to you so you can decrypt it. Now you both have the same key and nothing was sent unencrypted.
Well your public key was sent unencrypted but that’s fine because of how asymmetric encryption works.
@zaknenou@privacy it usually uses Diffie-Hellman key exchange which generates a shared key without revealing it to anyone. There are other ways to do it too.
SSL/TLS, the “S” in HTTPS, and other network encryption protocols such as SSH, use a technique called a Diffie-Hellman key exchange. This is a mode of cryptography where each side generates two keys: a public half and a private half. Anything encrypted with the public half is only decryptable by the associated private half (and vice versa).
You and Youtube only ever exchange the public halves of your respective key pairs. If someone snoops on the key exchange all they can do is insert spoofed messages, not decrypt real ones.
Moreover, the keypairs are generated on the fly for each new session rather than reused. This means that even a future compromise of youtube won’t unlock old sessions. This is a concept called forward secrecy.
Message spoofing is prevented by digital signatures. These also use the Diffie-Hellman principle of pairs of public/private keys, but use separate longer-term key pairs than those used with encryption. The public half of youtube’s signing key, as presented by the server when you connect to it, has to be digitally signed by a well-known public authority whose public signing key was shipped with your web browser.
this is very detailed answer thank you. however I face an ambiguity regarding this:
This is a mode of cryptography where each side generates two keys: a public half and a private half. Anything encrypted with the public half is only decryptable by the associated private half (and vice versa).
How can this private half be something that I know, Youtube knows but impossible for the snooper to our communication to know??
Youtube never knows the private half of your key pair. That never leaves your system.
Anything encrypted with the private half can only be decrypted with the public half, and anything encrypted with the public half can only be decrypted with the private half. These halves are known as the public key and the private key. Each side of the connection generates their own key pairs.
We both generate a set of keys, and exchange the public halves with each other. I then want to send you a message: I first encrypt it using my private key, I then encrypt it again using your public key and send that to you.
In order to read that message, you first decrypt it using your private key. This ensures the message was intended for you and wasn’t modified in transit, as you are the only one with access to that private key and only its matching public key could have been used to encrypt that layer.
You then decrypt it a second time using my public key. As I’m the only one with access to my own private key, you can be sure the message was sent by me.
As long as that resulted in a readable message; You’ve now verified who sent the message, that it was intended for you, and that the contents have not been modified or read in transit.
All this, including the key exchange is handled for you by the https (tls) protocol every time you connect to a website. Each of the messages sent between you and the site are encrypted in this manner.
The best way I find to think about it is a padlocked box.
The public key is a box with an open padlock on it. I can give it to anyone. If someone puts a message inside the box they can lock the padlock, but they don’t have the key to open it again.
I keep the key private. If someone sends me a locked box that has my padlock on it, only I have the key to open it and read the message.
Anything encrypted with the private half can only be decrypted with the public half, and anything encrypted with the public half can only be decrypted with the private half.
This is not true. In key pair cryptography, the public key used only for encryption and the private key is used only for decryption.
no, it isn’t bidirectional, public = encrypt, private = decrypt, that’s it. You can address a message to multiple recipients though (when using GPG), so often in case of email a message is addressed both to yourself and your recipient, so both you and your recipient have access to message text
You’re not mistaken, it is definitely possible with at least RSA, though, I would guess it may not always be possible. It also sounds like it’s still a bad idea unless you know all of the parameters used to generate the keys and can be sure what information is actually encoded in the keys.
Your computer generates two keys. One to encrypt a message. One to decrypt the message. The encrypt key is public. The decrypt key is private. Your computer shares the public key with YouTube. The private key is never shared.
YouTube does the same thing for your computer.
Your computer will have YouTube’s public key and your computer’s private key…
Your computer will be able to encrypt messages to send to YouTube that only YouTube will be able to decrypt. Even your computer will not be able to decrypt these messages after it has encrypted them using YouTube’s public key.
Since the decryption keys are never shared they can’t be snooped. That is why it is only possible for an attacker to encrypt new messages but not read any messages from either sender.
Bh sharing, unencrypted, on Lemmy that you like watching revolutionary videos on YouTube, the government now has that data, even if Google wasn’t going to give it to them. I thought I would just add that, as everyone else has explained asymmetric encryption well.
Also, usually it’s just the content of the website, not the URL itself that is encrypted, so anyone, not just the government, can know what YouTube videos you watch (as the video ID is in the URL) as well as the URL of any other websites you visit.
The other 2 commenters are wrong. URLs as they appear in your web browser are NOT encrypted when sent over https protocols.
The only data that is encrypted is POST data, and ONLY if it is sent over HTTPS.
So for example, a website login page crafts a URL like some.example.com/login?sessionID=12345678 and when you log in to the site extra parameters like Username and Password are sent via POST data, then anyone listening to your web traffic (like the NSA or your neighbor with wireshark) will br able to see the website and the sessionID, but not the login details as they will only show up encrypted.
What irritates me many times when I enter Lemmy is that instead of my Nick at the top right, someone else’s Nickname appears for a moment, before changing it to mine. This is a sign of an open account sharing channel, which is quite serious and should be fixed quickly. Security at Lemmy is apparently non-existent.
It occurres sometimes, I see a random nick from strangers. It means that my account obviously is públic and even shared. I will be attentive and I will try to take a screenshot, before the nickname changes to mine while Lemmy loads.
It’s not easy to catch, because it’s only a moment when Lemmy loads and just sometimes. For now I always have my eyes to the top right corner when I enter Lemmy.
Asymetrical encryption solves this, here is my attempt to do an ELI5:
Adam want’s to send a chat message to Ben, but want to do it securely, so they use a special program on their computers.
When the Adam’s program first reaches out to Ben’s computer, it asks for an unlocked padlock, this is a padlock that can only be unlocked by Ben’s program.
Adam’s program takes the padlock and crafts a new special series of padlocks that only Adam’s program can unlock, which it put’s in a box and locks it with Ben’s padlock.
The box is sent to Ben’s program, the program unlocks the box and creates it’s own special series of padlocks that only Ben’s program can unlock, put them in a box and locks it with Adam’s padlocks.
The box is then sent to Adam’s program, and is unlocked.
This now means that Adam’s program can put messages to Ben in a box, lock the box with one of Ben’s special padlocks and send it on it’s way knowing that only Ben can unlock the box and read the message.
Likewise, Ben can also send messages in boxes locked with Adam’s padlocks and know that only Adam can unlock them and read the message.
Added to this is the fact that messages from Ben can be verified as having used the special padlocks Adam sent to Ben, as else Adam’s special key wouldn’t fit the padlocks given to Ben.
In reality the padlocks are keys to lock a message, and the above text describe a secure key exchange.
Oh! I remember these steps being explained on a youtube video before. So the point is that the padlock (that Adam received on the third paragraph) is like a program on my windows desktop, I can run it (here like Adam uses it to encrypt the date), I can copy it and send it to a friend, but I can’t read the code which is compiled through an unknown language (i.e even if snooper received the padlock he can’t figure out how to unlock it and decrypt the data)?
They’re not asking you. They’re asking the companies
The real solution is for companies to ask for the name of the officer, and then go to the official police website, call their non emergency number, and ask to speak with the officer. Then confirm that it was them, in fact, that sent the request.
Bonus: then tell them to get a fucking warrant and hang up the phone.
I think you’re asking if it’s possible for your government to be a man-in-the-middle? Depending on which government you live under, the answer is likely no but more importantly the answer will always be; it’s not worth their effort to find out what you’re watching.
YouTube’s public key is signed by a certificate authority whose public key (root) is likely installed on your device from the factory. When you connect to YouTube, they send you a certificate chain which your browser will verify against that known root. In effect, it’s information both you and YouTube already share and can’t be tampered with over the wire.
Technically, those signatures can be forged by a well resourced adversary (i.e. a government) with access to the certificate authority through subversion, coercion, etc. At the same time, it’s probably easier to subvert or coerce you or YouTube to reveal what you watch.
What you’re describing is an issue with all of social media. While your concerns are valid, I don’t see your arguments as privacy issue. I honestly prefer post and comment history being transparent and accessible. It’s much like Reddit and this format fits much better with an open forum style of platform.
Don’t post private information and it’s a non-issue.
Also, can’t you just delete posts and comments like on Reddit?
Also, can’t you just delete posts and comments like on Reddit?
Nothing ever dies on the Internet. With the federated nature of Lemmy, it’s possible for deletes to not sync across instances, especially if there’s defederation that happens.
Zip uses very bad encryption that is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack. Do not ever use PKZIP encryption for any purpose github.com/kimci86/bkcrack
My biggest issue wouldn’t even be the kernel level access, but the fact that the stuff is written and tested by no one in particular. The possible bugs are the issue for me.
If that thing would be bullet-proof, hackers trying for years to break it without success, yeah. Ok. I could be convinced. If it is cracked after two days already… Then nope.
In many unzip utilities, they use temp files that you wouldn’t be paying attention to. These temp files will contain your credentials and you won’t know where they are or if they got deleted.
And even if they’re deleted by the archive program, it’s likely a normal deletion, and not a secure delete where the original data is overwritten with random data before deleting the entry in the file system, which could be potentially recovered.
So it appears, though I’m unsure whether it auto-accepts required cookies, those that have no opt-out option. If it’s banners, and not walls, then UBlock blocks the banner and thereby doesn’t give permission to store any kind of cookies, including the required ones. Kinda as if you browse the site without ever interacting with the banner.
Sadly, both need to trust that the site actually follows the rules and respects the selected/unselected cookies.
EDIT: Scrap all that, most sites don’t respect cookies settings either way, might just get either of the above and Cookie Auto Delete or something similar.
You can kinda do it with Google Customizabe Search Engine, which is basically a thin wrapper around Google. In a regular Google search you can use syntax like -site:ignorethisdomain.com to exclude specific domains (i do this with Pinterest whenever searching for images, for example). But manually typing in a large list of black listed domains would be tedious so instead you can set up a CSE with everybody you want to ignore and then just use the special URL as your search engine.
privacy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.