[tor-bugs] #25197 [Applications/Tor Browser]: Design document isn't precise about "Security" and "Privacy".
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
blackhole at torproject.org
Fri Feb 9 23:08:16 UTC 2018
#25197: Design document isn't precise about "Security" and "Privacy".
--------------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: arthuredelstein | Owner: tbb-team
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: Medium | Milestone:
Component: Applications/Tor Browser | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: tbb-spec | Actual Points:
Parent ID: | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
--------------------------------------+--------------------------
Comment (by arma):
This ticket started when I saw tor browser devs saying things like "that's
security, not privacy", which is a recipe for confusion in our modern "you
have to choose between security and privacy" world.
I think we have been using two notions:
* Code security, or implementation security, which is about whether the
browser can be exploited, which of course then could lead to
deanonymization, identification, etc.
* Privacy, which includes fingerprinting defense, but also proxy bypass
defense, so in a sense it's all of the ways that things can go wrong for
the user without implementation bugs.
Our name "security slider" is strictly supposed to be the first one. That
is, all settings of the security slider are intended to provide all of our
privacy protections. That is, if a Tor Browser dev ever says "well you set
your security slider to low so i figured i shouldn't enable that expensive
tracking protection", then that is a mistake.
(Arthur correctly points out that reducing surface area, which primarily
aims to reduce exposure to implementation bugs aka exploits, can also
improve things against fingerprinting and tracking and so on. That blurry
line certainly confuses the issue, but it doesn't by itself mean we aren't
talking about two different topics.)
The suggestion in this ticket is to (a) have a section towards the top of
the design doc explaining this distinction between the two goals, and then
(b) make sure that the rest of the design doc uses these two goals
correctly, i.e. doesn't confusingly switch between one word and the other.
It's also worth brainstorming more intuitive terms for each of these
goals. I think "code security" or "implementation security" is a pretty
good one for the first, but the privacy one is broad enough that it's not
obvious which term would be best. Let's not let a lack of the best term
slow us down too much though. :)
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/25197#comment:1>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list