Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Government Privacy

Gmail Security Is a Problem For Tor Users In Repressive Countries 74

Posted by samzenpus from the lets-see-what-you-got dept.
blottsie writes Google is a long-time contributor to the Tor Project. But a security feature in Gmail poses a potential problem for Tor users who live under dangerous regimes or otherwise need to protect their anonymity, reports Joseph Cox at the Daily Dot. The email service kicks users out of their login session if it detects logins from IP addresses originating in other countries, then requires a user to enter a PIN code sent to a cellphone. Unless the user has a burner phone, this could potentially betray his or her identity to authorities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gmail Security Is a Problem For Tor Users In Repressive Countries More

Gmail Security Is a Problem For Tor Users In Repressive Countries

Comments Filter:

  • Mobile generated codes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08, 2014 @02:25PM (#48095629)

    Ever heard of https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1066447?hl=en

    • Re:Mobile generated codes (Score:5, Informative)

      by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2014 @02:45PM (#48095889)

      Ever heard of https://support.google.com/acc... [google.com]

      That was my first thought. And before someone gets upset at needing a mobile device or a computing device in order to generate that pin number. Google even allows you to use pre-made pin codes, so if you're ever caught in a foreign land where the authorities are about to knock down your door, you just need to swallow the paper containing those codes.

    • Surely just using a non-web client would solve this too, no?

      • Correct, in that you can set up application specific passwords to use with IMAP clients... Harder to get them to work with Tor, and less secure then a two factor authentication method.

        • More generally, 2-step authentication disables the risk analysis based login security. If you set up 2SV then you can use your account via Tor.

          However, note that - as observed in a comment below - you cannot create a Gmail account via Tor without passing phone verification. Thus if you're logging in to a Gmail account via Tor successfully that probably means it was created outside of Tor and so has some non-Tor IPs associated with it at some point.

          The key point is that email and Tor don't mix, for obvious s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ^^correct. It's not secure to use SMS, and provides a phone number for regimes to hunt down and track if they twist Googles arm to get your data.

      But common!! Why are so many so dumb? Just use keepass2 and the keeOTP plugin.

      The little known fact (outside of us geek circles) is that "Google Authenticator" is a wide open standard that anyone can write code to implement and many have. It does not call the google mother ship. It's a time based key generation technique based on a shared secret key you enter

  • Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Just disable this feature in your account settings, or better yet: don't enable it in the first place.

    Google keeps trying to get me to enter a phone number. I will never comply.

    • I recently enabled this. It works. My email account is more secure. You can also generate codes for off-grid use, such as when you have internet access but no cell phone coverage.

      • You don't need a cell signal for the authenticator to work. You do, however, need an internet connection for email. So "off grid" use is very limited.
    • As though they don't already know what your phone number is anyway.
    • The world is slowly going toward "terrorist until proven not". Eventually, people will be flocking to security that's as simple as this. And by that time, there will be other security measurements that have to do with features of our biology. Be glad that today you can sit there with a smirk, talking about how you have a choice over security or not. In the future, it's very different.

      (smirk) Also, I have not given google my phone number either. (/smirk)

  • It's a shame (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    that there are no alternate email providers on this green planet of our Lord and Savior Baby Jesus. Amen.

  • This is an obviously beneficial security feature. Just use two-factor authentication and it will almost never come up.

    Or did you want random hackers in other countries to guess their way into your account data?

    Good for Google for protecting my logins.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How can you miss the point so badly?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Threni ( 635302 )

      I want a per-country blacklist/whitelist, so I never have to worry about foreigners attacking my account. Two factor on top of that. Too much to ask?

      • Sounds like a pretty good idea, except that I should be able to tell it I'm travelling soon to disable that country's block.

  • Security requiring cell phones (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2014 @02:35PM (#48095765)

    I really hate these "security" features that are based on the assumption that you've always got phone service available.

    I've run into this recently with my credit card company. It used to be that I could use their service to generate a one-time use credit card number for use in online transactions. But now they've implemented a policy that every time you use it, you have to first receive a code via text message and type that into their website -- so if (like me) you spend a lot of time in places with no cell phone service, but with internet access, it becomes unusable.

    The end result: I'm now stuck giving everyone my real credit card information again if I purchase something online. Genius "security" move, guys.

    I don't have anything against the idea of having the option of receiving a code via a cell phone for added security -- but it needs to be an option, not something that's required across the board.

    • Per the AC there is an app for that, which doesn't require phone service, and there are backup codes you can print for when you don't have your phone. So although your CC company might cause problems, gmail doesn't have to.

    • Burner phones in repressive countries? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm guessing most repressive countries don't have burner phones. In Saudi Arabia, we have to take government photo-ID with us to register any new SIM card. I have to enter my ID number every time I top up credit on my phone. Burners don't exist here. Anything I do on my phone or online, I do attached to my (or someone else's) identity.

    • I use this and Google has made it quite unobtrusive. I can authorize devices (computers, tablets, cell phones, etc) to access my Google Account. Each device needs to have a PIN code (sent to my cell phone via SMS) entered but after that initial setup it operates normally. The initial setup is a pain as you go from device to device and enter PIN codes, but the peace of mind knowing that RANDOM_HACKER can't get into your e-mail because he somehow got a hold of your username/password (despite your attempts

    • I really hate these "security" features that are based on the assumption that you've always got phone service available.

      Except in the case of most online services they do NOT make the assumption that you ALWAYS have a phone service.

      What they do provide is a free sort of two-factor authentication for a scenario where they have flagged a likely attack in progress. The only time I have ever been asked to use the system was a day where Gmail, Yahoo, and my web host all asked for it at the same time after flagging login attempts from Russia using my *correct* credentials. Naturally a bit of password management ensued.

      The only tim

    • Sounds to me like you need a better bank. If my card is used without my authorisation, that's fraud and I get a refund. Sounds like you don't...? (I'm still not going to give boobtropolis and a West African prince my credit card numbers, but normal retailers are fine - even the little ones).

      • Of course I do. But the fallout of fraud is expensive, in terms of time for me, and in terms of money for retailers (which indirectly gets passed on to me.) A responsible person takes measures to avoid it.

  • Instead of using a third-party emails, somebody should build (if it doesn't exist already) a blockchain based messaging system. People would create "accounts" that consist of a uuid, and (short) messages would be distributed publicly via the chain (but signed via PGP or some such).

  • If you stick to a basic login only with no secondary authentication options, this doesn't happen, you just get logged in and you'll get a security notification the next time you log in from your usual location - I have a very old gmail account though, I don't know if it's still possible to set up a gmail account to work this way.

  • I would never give Google or anyone else my cell phone number for "COUGH" security reasons. So I used TOR to sign into gmail it asked me to fill in my predetermined email address. I didn't go on from there so what's this about cellphones? Why would anyone trust a corporation that's been fined zillions of dollars for breaking laws and the customers trust? And the security works, if your a bad guy or someone who needs to hide from the government why in gods name are you using GMAIL?? lol They already told you

  • If you get googles 2 factor and run the authenticator app on ios or andriod you will not get the text messages, keeping you safe.

    • Yeah, but if you're using a smartphone at all, you'd need expert knowledge to protect your anonymity from it (rooting, etc.). The authenticator app doesn't require network access though (it's basically a time-synchronized security token, afaik), so it might be possible to port it to some non-connected device.

  • This is extremely dangerous, and for those who heard the whoosh, I'll try to explain why by describing how easy it would be to identify/locate someone with nothing more than a Google authenticator code. Google will ALWAYS cooperate with the authorities in whatever countries they operate in.

    OK, so let's assume for a second that the authorities know that an email address exists and that it's used for nefarious purposes like planning a lawful demonstration and/or it's yours. Google sends an authenticator code

  • So you are in a third world country and are trying to plan something, communicate in a way using an existing gmail account (and you aren't concerned about the fact that those communications are hosted by Google in the US, and probably liable to warrant search, etc) -- Still want to keep your current location secret?

    * Google Authenticator app works on mathematic principles and doesn't require internet access
    * Single use codes can be produced in advance, and used as needed

    And what if you are in one of these c

    • Pre-arrange an forum online somewhere (like here, or reddit, or even usenet), and post PGP using Tor

      -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1 hQEOA03CXzW/DRxxEAP+OEaI06gi0WGNTvAd6JWbLtmwRLYRFrEj2psJhIPA3Mp8 d4LJdJPBQ/jo4Gq/imfX4brahzXXuIHwWGv66Jr1AvnxMrUibp98lkjqMlPs57M1 U9hIEufSU2uq1BcOd7GZLYhZ7FZZZ1coCelbdh2FKvdB4sd+pPVvgSUjGWVboJUE AJFObPOtRqXtLtevFERW6WXhH/klsI8K4pTlx9AY1r0e/BPy0JBb26QaTSZAIWNg 5mmMi3+CIOKPDllOXwmtoBev8/4zsYEqkMmzdchj3M4tjfksArZRi+tH76QU+3oT ZWVMo/8vc7sQPaRntCjWjxstYuOuGbk8yIAAh7M1f3so0sAIAQmPiOQBqZLnUOon Dxfc5mYHHeOIyfquC1i8BVc9Sm56fqPRBKNI+cZRMiGMM9IsxB4Kk4e1Zvulvr85 aYNCBwJE

  • So don't use gmail. There are PLENTY of other options out there. This is a retarded complaint.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close