From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Schmidt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: opaque data types Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:19:34 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <877gi5gdsq@ch.ristopher.com> References: <51AE71DB.8060005@yandex.ru> <87zjv41uer.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878v2oxwhr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r4gfa8nw.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fvwvwgg5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87li6maa9r.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87sj0uqdhm.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <87a9n2oxu6@ch.ristopher.com> <87bo7iqad2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87txlancx8@ch.ristopher.com> <87y5alq58o.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370683184 21343 80.91.229.3 (8 Jun 2013 09:19:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:19:44 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 08 11:19:45 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UlFJI-00015I-RM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:19:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59016 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UlFJI-0002SD-CK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:19:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45139) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UlFJD-0002Rw-1H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:19:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UlFJA-0002ZX-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:19:38 -0400 Original-Received: from ristopher.com ([146.185.21.93]:52067 helo=saturn.ch.ristopher.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UlFJA-0002ZN-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:19:36 -0400 Original-Received: by saturn.ch.ristopher.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 143C4201A3; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:19:34 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ch.ristopher.com; s=mail; t=1370683174; bh=0QbspJ3qy+pJg9dG19GzoiIE1mZ0TXUFEyzIv+04YFM=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Date; b=zH9jab4VPLs7FrN6uKmSlMpaZtwF3cFUM7vFHHOP1Yv3+8rEPvoTrIcRCEiljP94d fmsEC5hxCcSsFFub09AmNP/hFRDhnndX6dm1dE9rrJcS8yqjIANyWLaMoUFfjYCGl4 8TEiWgDXEaCPJRJsFKiZCRGKJt4plnGwfjh3b7eg= In-Reply-To: <87y5alq58o.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:01:59 -0400") Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x X-Received-From: 146.185.21.93 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:160267 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > CS> Considering we are talking about a regular userspace application > CS> with no distributed components I do not see any advantage at all > CS> by encrypting passwords in memory. How does interposing a > CS> function to extract passwords from a new inbuild type increase > CS> security at all? > > By making it less trivial to extract them. That is security through obscurity. > The opaque type makes it possible to change the implementation if > better ways are available on a platform, e.g. the Mac OS X keychain or > the Secrets API or the W32 keychain. The fallback mechanism can at > least make it a little harder to get someone's passwords. Storing passwords using different backends does not require in-memory encryption or a new opaque type. How is this new type in combination with custom hard back ends superior to what auth-info.el is doing already? > CS> Who's your attacker anyway? > > Do we have to do risk assessments too? I do not understand that question. I was asking for an informal threat model because I did not understand the problem you are trying to solve. I still do not understand the problem and I do not see how that new type makes provides any advantage whatsoever. Christopher