Perpetual Window into Gmail(wired.com)
wired.com
Perpetual Window into Gmail
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/02/perpetual-window-into-gmail/
16 comments
And really, 88 apps? I don't even use a single one.
Pretty much exactly what I thought. Facebook and Zynga the only one that I gave access to. I guess Zynga ended up there because I played Zynga poker once or twice. Removed it.
Being paranoid can be useful. :)
Being paranoid can be useful. :)
I proposed a solution to this problem a couple of years ago. Service providers could monitor how the OAuth token is used by the application and provide a report to users. If a few users could then audit their logs and rate applications, we would quickly flag malicious apps. Services providers would have to make only a few changes to their current OAuth implementations.
My colleagues and I developed this idea in a paper (see: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5421...). Back then we also had proof of concept running on our server.
My colleagues and I developed this idea in a paper (see: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5421...). Back then we also had proof of concept running on our server.
FTA: "If one’s hacked or the list of tokens leaked, everyone who ever used that service risks exposing his complete Gmail archive."
Is that even true? The advantage of Oauth over the "password anti-pattern" is that you can grant limited rights. i.e. sharing my address book with Facebook. That's personal information, but it's not my entire email archive.
I believe this list is the scope of possible Oauth permissions: http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/faq.html#AuthScopes
It looks like granting access the Gmail Atom feed allows access to new Inbox emails (but not the entire email body, I think.) But if you haven't granted that permission, your emails should be safe. (I think. Any expert opinions?)
Is that even true? The advantage of Oauth over the "password anti-pattern" is that you can grant limited rights. i.e. sharing my address book with Facebook. That's personal information, but it's not my entire email archive.
I believe this list is the scope of possible Oauth permissions: http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/faq.html#AuthScopes
It looks like granting access the Gmail Atom feed allows access to new Inbox emails (but not the entire email body, I think.) But if you haven't granted that permission, your emails should be safe. (I think. Any expert opinions?)
The Gmail OAuth system pretty much grants developers unfettered access to your inbox. I built a service called Syphir on top of it that literally examined every email you receive, checked the subject/sender/body against some customer filters, and then acted on the email (starred, deleted, marked as read, delayed, pushed to your phone, etc). Google profiled our mobile app when they launched this service: http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/03/oauth-access-to-imaps...
There are two reasons they built this system: (1) So apps won't have to ask for your Google password. This password would give them access to much more than just Gmail. And if you wanted to revoke their access, you'd have to change your password, whereas with OAuth you can just flip a switch in your Google settings. (2) So apps won't have to do hacky stuff with curl to interact with Gmail. It's much easier to use an official API.
That said, if it's possible for an application to read/act on your email, it's possible for them to store your email. And if it's possible for them to store your email, it's possible for a hacker to hack it. So if you're going to use something based on Gmail OAuth, make sure you trust them and that they aren't actually storing your data.
There are two reasons they built this system: (1) So apps won't have to ask for your Google password. This password would give them access to much more than just Gmail. And if you wanted to revoke their access, you'd have to change your password, whereas with OAuth you can just flip a switch in your Google settings. (2) So apps won't have to do hacky stuff with curl to interact with Gmail. It's much easier to use an official API.
That said, if it's possible for an application to read/act on your email, it's possible for them to store your email. And if it's possible for them to store your email, it's possible for a hacker to hack it. So if you're going to use something based on Gmail OAuth, make sure you trust them and that they aren't actually storing your data.
It all comes down to trust and this author is right, he shouldn't trust these companies. If it isn't clear who they are and how they handle your data then you shouldn't trust them.
This highlights a growing problem I see with newly launched consumer oriented sites (many posted here on HN). Startups are ignoring legal and regulatory requirements around privacy and seem completely insensitive to customer's feelings in this area.
That is going to hurt them in the long run. They'll lose customers like this author. Things are moving fast with regard to privacy around the world. The FTC tagged both Google[1] and Facebook[2] last year for privacy violations. The EU is pushing forward with new, much tougher, regulations[3] and still week after week I see sites come out that don't even have a privacy policy[4].
[1]http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/2282000...
[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/facebook-s...
[3]http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/12...
[4]http://fandalism.com/
This highlights a growing problem I see with newly launched consumer oriented sites (many posted here on HN). Startups are ignoring legal and regulatory requirements around privacy and seem completely insensitive to customer's feelings in this area.
That is going to hurt them in the long run. They'll lose customers like this author. Things are moving fast with regard to privacy around the world. The FTC tagged both Google[1] and Facebook[2] last year for privacy violations. The EU is pushing forward with new, much tougher, regulations[3] and still week after week I see sites come out that don't even have a privacy policy[4].
[1]http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/2282000...
[2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/facebook-s...
[3]http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/12...
[4]http://fandalism.com/
Wow, unroll.me got a huge traffic influx from being linked in Wired, but when I follow the link it won't let me sign up due to not being on their beta list. It did offer a beta sign up link after that, but that page was broken. Even if it wasn't, having the extra step will destroy the conversion rates. The amount of sign ups they are losing is making me cry. There are startups that would kill for that kind of free, good press, link from a huge site...
They appear to have fixed it? When I click on sign up, it goes to the gmail oath page...
Your email is often used as the master key to all your other accounts. Especially if you have old signup or password reset emails hanging around, controlling it makes it easy for someone to control everything else.
So there's more than just privacy at stake here. I go to almost paranoid lengths to protect it from attacks known and unknown because once someone takes it, they can take over almost everything else.
Just something to think about.
So there's more than just privacy at stake here. I go to almost paranoid lengths to protect it from attacks known and unknown because once someone takes it, they can take over almost everything else.
Just something to think about.
I've been seeing a lot of adverts recently for Google security. This third-party authentication system for Gmail, as described, seems like a complete step in the wrong direction if they're trying to educate regular users about the importance of keeping email - one's online master key - secure. Lock you screen, use a 2 step password, oh, and this new startup with a nice website would like to read your entire email history: Allow/Deny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaSBvUD3_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0TgHKDDkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaSBvUD3_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0TgHKDDkw
How do I check how many apps I've given authorization to for this kind of thing?
Under your 'Account settings', go to 'Authorizing applications & sites' in the first section (Security).
curious. i had "localhost" listed there. what does that mean? i revoked access and am still logged in to gmail.
(i know what localhost means, in that it is the name associated with 127.0.0.1, but how is it a "connected site, app or service"?)
(i know what localhost means, in that it is the name associated with 127.0.0.1, but how is it a "connected site, app or service"?)
Perhaps someone showed you a web app demo on their desktop or laptop (and said app was installed on the same machine) and you used Google to sign in.
It’s so simple and pervasive that even savvy users have no issue letting dozens of new services access their various accounts.
No, that's patently false.
No, that's patently false.
For certain values of savvy, I guess.
Why do OAuth tokens invalidate upon password change? I have some apps that need feed posting access for Facebook pages and users are often confused when they stop working after they change their password.
Makes sense as a security feature. Changing your password implies your account's been compromised; killing OAuth authorizations is a way of making sure no one snuck in any authorizations without you noticing in the process.
Changing your password implies your account's been compromised
While it may be in response to a compromise, it's generally good security practice to change your password periodically.
While it may be in response to a compromise, it's generally good security practice to change your password periodically.
2-step verification has made that practice obsolete.
I've read that it's better to use 2-step in conjunction with a strong password that you'll remember, versus regularly migrating from one weak or medium strength password to another.
I've read that it's better to use 2-step in conjunction with a strong password that you'll remember, versus regularly migrating from one weak or medium strength password to another.
What are the steps required by random service before they can start requesting access to Gmail? Is there any form of review before Google issues them an application key, etc?
I think this is difficult to avoid as more apps authenticate logins though sites such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook.
You could always create a special GMail account that you use to sign up for spam generating offers or deals and use that to authenticate logins you're not sure about.
You could always create a special GMail account that you use to sign up for spam generating offers or deals and use that to authenticate logins you're not sure about.
https://accounts.google.com/b/0/IssuedAuthSubTokens
That's the link to list the apps that have access to your account, but for the life of me, I can't work out how to get there from any of the other settings pages...
EDIT it's second from the bottom, in the "Accounts and Import" (3rd across) https://mail.google.com/mail/#settings/accounts
It's a little scary that the authorization is all-or-nothing. Many sites use OAuth just for sign-in (like Stackoverflow), so surely it makes sense to have different levels of access (I was under the impression that fine-grained access control was the whole point of token-based OAuth).
That's the link to list the apps that have access to your account, but for the life of me, I can't work out how to get there from any of the other settings pages...
EDIT it's second from the bottom, in the "Accounts and Import" (3rd across) https://mail.google.com/mail/#settings/accounts
It's a little scary that the authorization is all-or-nothing. Many sites use OAuth just for sign-in (like Stackoverflow), so surely it makes sense to have different levels of access (I was under the impression that fine-grained access control was the whole point of token-based OAuth).
The title needs a s/Perpetial/Perpetual/, badly. Aargh.
i'm not deeply familiar with OAuth, but it seems that each access token should have not just a revoke ability for the granter, but also a TTL/expiration date which can be altered or seen. i'm also not sure if there are more granular permissions or differentiating tokens, perhaps i want to share my contacts/address book but not my email, and only up to a max of 3 requests per month...
Or just to login with a service as that's probably most people's most prevalent reason to use oauth? I'm surprised that gmail don't have a permissions system like facebook, it concerns me that right now it's such an all or nothing option.
You can use OAuth with your Google account to login to other services without granting them any other permissions. The few apps I've granted access to have a single permission that says "Sign in using your Google account."
[deleted]
Seems like it would be an easy thing to do from the OAuth provider's end - in addition to showing the scopes, you can put it into a few easy buckets:
24 hours, 7 days, 1 month, 1 year, indefinitely
24 hours, 7 days, 1 month, 1 year, indefinitely
[deleted]
On a related note, do you ever wonder how strong the passwords the authors of the Chrome extensions you use are?
Again - even if "fortunately, Unroll.me is a totally legit NYC-based startup providing a useful service", that says nothing about their security practices. For all we know, someone already has access to their servers and they will never detect the breakin.