Confidentiality at FastMail

http://blog.fastmail.com/2014/12/15/security-confidentiality/

by brongondwana • 12 years ago

136 53 12 years ago

blog.fastmail.com

na852• 12 years ago

We follow due process when dealing with law enforcement, providing individual data in response to the appropriate Australian warrant, so there is no justification to attempt wholesale surveillance of all our users.

Except if Fastmail can decrypt user's data, then they can be compelled to backdoor their system, and also compelled to keep it quiet. Australia is part of the "5 eyes", after all, and from an outsider perspective their government seems particularly hostile/authoritarian.

Failing that legal avenue, would Australia's intelligence services refuse to simply hack their way into Fastmail's servers if the NSA asked them to? Would the NSA refuse to just do it themselves, if it came to that? Surely not.

The president (or whomever) of NYI would certainly not refuse entry to federal agents wanting to install an implant. NYI just has to report an outage, meanwhile Fastmail's servers have grown a new rootkit. And failing that, then it's time to bribe a security guard in the middle of the night.

To me this reads as nothing more than Fastmail trying to provide a false sense of security.

dangerlibrary• 12 years ago

At least they don't decrypt and read your email as part of their business model.

brongondwana5• 12 years ago

It is impossible to run an email service without being able to decrypt data. You can search your entire email archive in seconds, from a phone on the end of a slow network, and it just works. End-to-end encryption isn't compatible with the way people want to use email.

We are happy for people to use PGP, though of course we don't offer an interface to it because that would involve sharing keys with us and defeat the purpose.

We've addressed the legal framework we work in in the linked blogpost, and addressed precisely the scenario you lay out. Governments change, and they love to posture, but the reality is the laws, not the soundbytes.

We would be aware of the outage - have you seen how reliable NYI are?

http://blog.fastmail.com/2014/12/10/security-availability/

They don't have outages.

I'm much more worried about the NSA (or any of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies) knowing of a hole in one of the pieces of software that we use and injecting a rootkit with that. Thankfully the same security practices that defend against hackers are also useful here.

alfiedotwtf2• 12 years ago

To add to this, and this needs to be emphasised, is that we make it clear to anybody requesting data that there are legal channels with due process to go through which work.

See the following for more info - http://blog.fastmail.com/2013/10/07/fastmails-servers-are-in...

na852• 12 years ago

It is impossible to run an email service without being able to decrypt data.

Counterpoint: seems to me that protonmail is doing exactly that.

We've addressed the legal framework we work in in the linked blogpost, and addressed precisely the scenario you lay out. Governments change, and they love to posture, but the reality is the laws, not the soundbytes.

You haven't addressed any of the points I initially raised. Your blog post skirts the issue quite handily.

They don't have outages.

Anyone claiming 100% uptime are fraudsters.

rayiner• 12 years ago

Except if Fastmail can decrypt user's data, then they can be compelled to backdoor their system, and also compelled to keep it quiet. Australia is part of the "5 eyes", after all, and from an outsider perspective their government seems particularly hostile/authoritarian.

If you don't expect the government to follow any rules, then most of these discussions are moot. But what we've been seeing with the Snowden leaks is that the governments are at least attempting to walk the tightrope of legality. Here in the U.S., that means having at least plausible procedures to filter out non-foreigner communications, and going through legal processes like subpoenas instead of simply breaking into computer systems.

These facts have practical concerns. Unless you hypothesize that the U.S. and Australia are putting citizens in prison using secret courts, the government still has to present evidence in a court proceeding, and that has to comport with the 4th amendment in the U.S., and whatever the equivalent is in Australia.

The law in this area is rapidly evolving, but in my opinion as someone with both a legal and technical background, encryption like what Fastmail has gives 4th amendment arguments a lot more teeth. When your data is in an e-mail service that's readily accessible to the service provider, or even data-mined for advertising purposes, it's susceptible to the charge that it's not private information, because after all you're allowing someone else to rummage through it. But if there are protections in place, even if they can be circumvented if needed, that's different. Now you're talking about something that's more like a safe deposit box at a bank or a rented storage unit, which do have 4th amendment protection. They're locked, and only the owner accesses what's inside as a matter of course. The lock can be broken, in an emergency, but that doesn't change the fact that the owner of the facility does not access the contents as a matter of course.

sinak• 12 years ago

Unless you hypothesize that the U.S. and Australia are putting citizens in prison using secret courts, the government still has to present evidence in a court proceeding, and that has to comport with the 4th amendment in the U.S., and whatever the equivalent is in Australia.

rayiner, how about the reports of "parallel construction" by the NSA? While it's true that the government still has to present evidence in a court, according to recent reports [1] the NSA "tips off" organizations like the DEA.

1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05...

pjc50• 12 years ago

the U.S. and Australia are putting citizens in prison using secret courts

Guantanamo is still there; the US is putting non-citizens in secret prison without really a court at all.

The other use of the communications metadata is for targeting drone strikes in e.g. Yemen. No due process at all, just a kill list.

e12e2• 12 years ago

So, what you're saying is only use Google services if you're an US citizen and only use FastMail if you carry an Australian passport -- because otherwise all bets are off?

patronagezero• 12 years ago

Don't play this game unless you're not really interested in full confidentiality. Some people are willing to increase security to the point of protecting their financial interests without concerning themselves with security against nation-states, I think the future, if not the history as we already know it, will prove this to be foolish.

artichokeheart• 12 years ago

The whole protetcion under Australian law is a nice marketing spin. But that's all it is: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/australian-government-...

moe3• 12 years ago

We have spelled out in our privacy policy and public communications that we don’t participate in blanket surveillance. We are an Australian company, and to participate in such programs would be in violation of Australian law.

Are you really this naive?

Australia is a member of Five Eyes[1]. Your local laws don't apply to intelligence agencies.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

robn_fastmail4• 12 years ago

You've completely misunderstood the line you quote. FastMail as a company do not participate in blanket surveillance. We can't control the actions of any one else, governments or otherwise.

middleclick• 12 years ago

(Disclosure: I am a paying FastMail customer) Is there any reason why you put the sender's IP address when sending out a mail via SMTP? Sure you want to keep logs, but why put the IP address of people like me who pay you for the service (and thus, won't spam or anything)

moe3• 12 years ago

You say "FastMail as a company do not participate in blanket surveillance". And then, in your next sentence, you admit that this is actually not under your control.

Why do you keep trying to make it sound as if FastMail had a choice in the matter even though you know that it doesn't?

brohoolio• 12 years ago

Fastmail is a great company. We worked with them when we were a cyrus mail shop.

sgentle• 12 years ago

In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?"

For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blanket surveillance" and equivalent statements are even worth the pixels they take up on your screen. It may as well say "our security is endorsed by His Holiness The Dalai Lama"

The Australian government has the power under the recently passed National Security Legislation Amendment [0] to issue a secret warrant compelling access to any number of computers or networks for anything that will "assist" in "obtaining intelligence related to security". The warrant allows surveillance, as well as "addition, deletion or alteration of data". Disclosing that warrant's existence is punishable by up to 10 years in jail. This is without even considering the reciprocal spying possibilities of the Five Eyes network.

There is no equivalent in Australia to the US fourth amendment. Even illegally gathered evidence can be used in a trial depending on the discretion of the judge. [1]

If you think "we don't participate in blanket surveillance" is an acceptable response to that legal reality, I ask you to consider what you would think of a company that, when asked if they store passwords in cleartext, respond "yes, but we don't look at them."

[0] http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bil... [1] http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12...

npizzolato• 12 years ago

In security it also doesn't make sense to ask "am I secure?" but instead to ask "how secure am I?". The money in my bank account isn't more secure from a government that wants to freeze my assets, but it is certainly more secure than the money under my mattress from a potential break in. You have to identify the targets you're concerned about before you can tell if you're "secure enough." And, for the most part, individuals don't need to be "secure enough" against spy networks of nations.

Furthermore, and I think we're going to disagree here, I believe there is a balance to be played between trust, security, and following laws. For instance, a safe deposit box at a bank is generally secure. A bank won't usually open it, but they can if the need arises, and law enforcement can obtain the contents if they go through the proper channels and provide a warrant. In theory, I believe this to be an inherently good thing. The police must be able to pursue criminals, and, by providing evidence, be granted access to things they would otherwise be unable to access. I believe there to be a direct analogy between an email provider that does not routinely give access to its users emails but would respond to warrants as necessary.

Now, I would be naive if I didn't realize that the spy agencies of the world weren't holding up to their government's part of the bargain here. But I believe the answer to be in government accountability, not completely locked down security.

Aside from philosophical views, I also believe that this is a much more pragmatic approach. Do you know why people give up all their personal information, email, etc. to the Googles and Facebooks of the world? Because it's so goddamned convenient. Google provides so many great services for free. And full security is hard and inconvenient. You're going to have a tough pitch to sell fully encrypted email just on the basis of services not being able to provide a good search experience, because I gotta tell ya, Gmail search is really amazing, and it provides many people with tangible benefits. Fully encrypted email provides value that is much more intangible.

bad_user• 12 years ago

While I agree with your arguments, our digital footprint is the closest thing we have to mind reading and governments will simply not back down on warrantless surveillance, therefore I believe a line is being crossed that shouldn't be.

On the other hand, if you're not doing client side encryption, preferably offline, then you're not protected against a global threat, period. This is because, even if FastMail refuses to cooperate, well funded security agencies can do MITM attacks in spite of SSL/TLS.

kaffee• 12 years ago

This is exactly the right perspective. If the US has secret warrants in the form of NSL (National Security Letters) or similar, it's easy to imagine Australia having precisely the same thing. I've enjoyed being a user of fastmail for some time but I'll be switching to one of the new projects (e.g., LEAP) or self-hosting in the future.

vog3• 12 years ago

I'll be switching to [...] or self-hosting in the future

I can really recommend self-hosted email. This is not as hard as it sounds. Of course, you should have the following abilities:

1) find some good documentation (or friend) that explains a clean setup with spam filter, correct DNS/SPF and HELO entries, such that you don't get on the blacklists. Note that this is almost a one-time effort, you'll have to adjust things every 5-10 years, I guess. [1]

2) be able to administrate a Linux/BSD machine, i.e. to keep it simple and up-to-date in the long term.

I really hope that Tuxevara will finish his series about a modern email setup. This is his first part:

http://www.tuxevara.de/2014/11/mailserver-reloaded-step-1/

[1] For example, I had to add SPF entries since my mailserver also had an IPv6 address, otherwise Google and others blocked me - for understandable reasons.

e12e2• 12 years ago

I was unaware of LEAP, I assume you mean: https://leap.se/en/services/email ? Interesting approach, to use a local proxy to be able to transparently wrap legacy SMTP/IMAP with some added security and convenience beyond "just" GPG/PGP.

johnsea• 12 years ago

>In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?" For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blanket surveillance" and equivalent statements are even worth the pixels they take up on your screen.

Given enough money/power likely everything can be compromised. But it seems that Fastmail take enough precaution against the 'can it be compromised' threats.

Regarding the blanket statements: I wouldn't trust an US based company with such a statement because of the Patriot Act and what we learned from the 'Snowden documents' about Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple etc. and the lying and selective truth by NSA. But I would trust companies which are based in countries where one (in general) is allowed to reveal when information has been requested.

The Fastmail privacy statements [1] seem fine to me. Additionaly with Fastmail I also appreciate that they have only part of information about me and not a much broader aggregated set of browsing/search history, location, credit card numbers, youtube... as would be the case with e.g. Google.

>There is no equivalent in Australia to the US fourth amendment. Even illegally gathered evidence can be used in a trial depending on the discretion of the judge.

Until Patriot act has been relaxed/abolished and NSA splitted in smaller units (and relieved of part of their immense budget) the fourth amendment can imho only be a last-rescue instrument. Also afaik it doesn't 'protect' me as a foreign customer (of e.g. Google and Apple).

[1] https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html

jpsim• 12 years ago

We recently had respected independent security firm Matasano do a security audit

Strangely, they don't mention the results of this audit, which struck me as odd, but then I found this:

Our most recent security audit, conducted by Matasano in October 2014, found no significant issues. (Source[0])

I just thought I'd share in case anyone else was wondering.

[0] https://www.fastmail.com/help/ourservice/security.html?domai...

brongondwana5• 12 years ago

Yeah, I figured that was kinda self evident. We wouldn't leave any security holes open. I guess I can edit the blog post to clarify this without changing the meaning any.

breakingcups• 12 years ago

I'm curious about the insignificant issues.

johnpowell• 12 years ago

Isn't it just common sense to assume email is in no way secure?

If the government wants it they will torture you in Egypt to get all your keys and so on.

I personally use fastmail but that is because I don't want google tying my email to browsing. I am pretty sure that if the NSA wants my stuff they will strap some 120V to Rob Mueller's testicles in a cave.

robn_fastmail4• 12 years ago

Nah. If they want your stuff, they'd work through the appropriate Mutual Assistance Treaty to get an Australian court to issue a warrant, and then we'd comply with it and hand over your mail because we follow the law.

Making a phone call is way easier and cheaper than giving RobM a free Mediterranean holiday :)

sandstrom2• 12 years ago

I wish they would setup servers in another country, say Iceland (since they have some there already).

Also, I'm thinking that Australia may not be an ideal jurisdiction if you want to run an email company that cares about privacy. The offering will never get any better than the worst of national laws [weakest link argument].

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/australian-government-...

http://theconversation.com/sweeping-security-law-would-have-...

alfiedotwtf2• 12 years ago

Why do you think Iceland is safe from government access (even safe from the US government)?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/14/4836994/dont-host-your-vi...

sandstrom2• 12 years ago

That may be a valid point, I'm not that familiar with Iceland.

My hunch though, is that they'll probably cooperate in criminal cases, but that it will go through some judge. Also, I think there is much lower risk of dragnet surveillance or secret court orders.

Derbasti• 12 years ago

Basically, you need to use an email provider in your own country. Each country (hopefully) has laws to protect the privacy of its citizens. Such laws usually don't extend to non-citizens.

Either that, or encrypt everything you do.

microtonal• 12 years ago

False. The safe harbor agreement between the US and the EU also gives EU citizens rights:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm

So, ironically, it may be safer to store your data with a US company than an Australian company. Also, the EU believes (see linked page) that the NSA dragnet may be a violation of the safe harbor agreement.

junto• 12 years ago

Correction - Wouldn't it be better as an EU citizen to store your data with an EU provider (I.e. a non-NSA partner)?

The safe harbor agreement has been demonstrated to be patently false. The data wasn't ever safe. Every major US tech company has participated either willingly or forced through secret courts under threat of prison for non-compliance by individual employees. That's not 'safe'.

It's a joke. It's a kangaroo court. It's non-democratic. It's anti-privacy. It's a conflict of EU basic human rights. I could go on.

The EU has a responsibility to prevent EU citizen's data from leaving the EU, period. I hope they see it through and the safe harbor agreement is the first thing I'd rip up and throw in the the face of whichever kangaroo US President you have now or next time.

Then Microsoft need to win their upcoming court case against the USG, which will demonstrate clearly to everyone that the USG cannot open the electronic equivalent of a private sealed letter stored in a bank safe in Ireland, because they damn well feel like it.

The US constitution needs another amendment to protect the privacy rights of all, regardless of whether they are US citizens or not. It is time the citizens of the US started pushing for it. These three letter agencies with their massive black budgets funded by narcotics are your mess and it is time you sorted them out.

I'll leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

hso1• 12 years ago

All this goes away when we exchange messages with other providers (eg: Gmail).

Confidentiality at FastMail

Related Stories