Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

iSURG

  1. Home
  2. Privacy
  3. > Verify our no-logging policy through code inspection

> Verify our no-logging policy through code inspection

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Privacy
2 Posts 2 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R This user is from outside of this forum
    R This user is from outside of this forum
    refalo@programming.dev
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Verify our no-logging policy through code inspection

    Couldn't a network appliance, iptables or a bpf program still be logging and we'd have no idea?

    Validate that the code running on our servers matches this public repository

    Yes but AFAIK it can't validate that the code you verified against is the same code actually powering your VPN session right now (could be a dummy box just used for validation), or that some other external hardware or superuser-level code isn't also listening in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

    J 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • R refalo@programming.dev

      Verify our no-logging policy through code inspection

      Couldn't a network appliance, iptables or a bpf program still be logging and we'd have no idea?

      Validate that the code running on our servers matches this public repository

      Yes but AFAIK it can't validate that the code you verified against is the same code actually powering your VPN session right now (could be a dummy box just used for validation), or that some other external hardware or superuser-level code isn't also listening in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

      J This user is from outside of this forum
      J This user is from outside of this forum
      jet@hackertalks.com
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

      You are 100% right. Also - SGX depends on explicit trust of Intel code signing, which is another externality that needs to be in the threat model.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      Reply
      • Reply as topic
      Log in to reply
      • Oldest to Newest
      • Newest to Oldest
      • Most Votes


      • Login

      • Don't have an account? Register

      • Login or register to search.
      • First post
        Last post
      0
      • Categories
      • Recent
      • Tags
      • Popular
      • World
      • Users
      • Groups