I’ve been trying out and you can find me at key­­preillyme.
I think it might be point­ing a use­ful way for­ward on private-by-default com­mu­ni­ca­tion and, for what it does, it gets a lot of things right.

The prob­lem · We’d like to be con­fi­dent that the mes­sages we send across the net  —  email, chat, SMS, what­ev­er  —  are se­cure. When we say “secure” we mean some com­bi­na­tion of “nobody can read them but the per­son who’s sup­posed to” and “the per­son read­ing them can be sure who sent them.” ¶

In prin­ci­ple, this should be easy be­cause of Public-key cryp­tog­ra­phy, which has been around for a while, is re­li­able enough to pow­er ba­si­cal­ly 100% of the fi­nan­cial trans­ac­tions that cross the internet, and for which there’s ex­cel­lent open-source soft­ware that any­one can use for free.

Get­ting cryp­to in place for mail and oth­er mes­sages has been tough, for a few rea­son­s. First, how do you find some­one else’s key re­li­ably, where by “reliably” I mean not just find it, but be­lieve that it’s re­al­ly theirs?

Se­cond, most mes­sages these days live in the cloud (G­mail, Face­book, Twit­ter, etc) and the cloud own­ers like to have them un­en­crypt­ed to help them to ad­ver­tise bet­ter.
So, they’re prob­a­bly not re­al­ly all that mo­ti­vat­ed to help make mes­sages se­cure.

Now, I know that se­cure email is pos­si­ble, and that https con­nec­tions to Face­book and Google and Hot­mail are help­ful, but right now to­day, most mes­sag­ing isn’t very se­cure.

Key­base · Key­ does a few sim­ple things: ¶

  • Keeps a di­rec­to­ry of keys that you can look up by a sim­ple name. Since I’m an ear­ly adopter I got “preillyme”, but in prac­tice your email ad­dress would work fine.
  • Lets you prove that the own­er of a key al­so owns a par­tic­u­lar Twit­ter han­dle and Github ac­coun­t. In prac­tice, since I tend to be­lieve that the peo­ple I know are as­so­ci­at­ed with cer­tain Twit­ter/Github ac­counts, I’m in­clined to be­lieve that the keys re­al­ly be­long to them.
  • Lets you en­crypt mes­sages so they can on­ly be read by one par­tic­u­lar per­son, lets you sign them to prove that they could on­ly have come from you, and the in­verse; de­crypt and signature-check.
  • Does all this in a sim­ple web page that’s easy to use, or in a geek-friendly command-line in­ter­face.

So, the idea is that if there’s a mes­sage you want to send, and you want it to be a se­cret, you vis­it key­, paste your text in, en­crypt it for the per­son you’re send­ing it to, sign it, and then copy­/­paste it in­to an email or chat or Face­book mes­sage or what­ev­er. The per­son at the oth­er end copy­/­pastes it in­to key­ and re­vers­es the pro­cess and would you look at that, you’ve just prac­ticed se­cure com­mu­ni­ca­tion!

Yeah, it would be bet­ter if this were al­ready built in­to ev­ery mes­sag­ing pro­gram that everyone us­es, and you got it by press­ing a but­ton; or bet­ter stil­l, if ev­ery­thing were al­ways encrypt­ed.

But in the in­ter­im, while this may be a lit­tle klunky, it’s aw­ful­ly sim­ple and easy to un­der­stand; and it works with any­thing that can be used to send a chunk of text from any­where to any­where. So I’m actually pret­ty im­pressed.

In greater depth · Here are a few more tech­ni­cal rea­sons why I like what I see at Key­base. ¶

  • There’s the abil­i­ty to “track” an­oth­er user, which does all the cryp­to check­ing and signs the re­sult, so in fu­ture you can do a quick check whether anything’s changed. This speeds things up and re­moves a few threat mod­el­s.
  • There’s al­so a command-line clien­t, which should be very com­fort­ing for the para­noid. Per­haps the most wor­ry­ing threat mod­el is that some­one shows up at Keybase’s of­fice and, us­ing ei­ther ma­li­cious tech­nol­o­gy, a Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Agency let­ter, ar­ranges to com­pro­mise their soft­ware; the first time you type your passphrase in­to that com­pro­mised soft­ware, your se­cu­ri­ty is gone. But if you use the command-line clien­t, the ad­ver­sary has to com­pro­mise your own com­put­er to get at you.
  • The ac­tu­al cryp­tog­ra­phy soft­ware is all GPG and Scryp­t; what Key­base of­fers is pipefit­ting and a di­rec­to­ry and some util­i­ties. So the cryp­to part ought to be believably se­cure.
  • It’s all open-source and there on Github. Very com­fort­ing.
  • There’s al­so a REST API, which at first glance looks very sen­si­ble to me.
  • In prin­ci­ple, once the API is locked down, any­one could im­ple­ment a Keybase-style di­rec­to­ry  —  for ex­am­ple to serve a par­tic­u­lar com­mu­ni­ty of trust  —  and mes­sag­ing tools could be taught how to work with any old in­stance.
  • The peo­ple who built this are the ones who built OkCupid, which suggests that their tech­ni­cal chops may well be up to the task.

A wor­ry · You can al­so store your pri­vate key, en­crypt­ed with your passphrase, in the Key­base di­rec­to­ry. This makes cer­tain things eas­i­er and quick­er, but it makes that one par­tic­u­lar threat mod­el, where a bad per­son com­pro­mis­es the soft­ware, even scari­er, be­cause they have your pri­vate key the first time you type your passphrase in­to the com­pro­mised soft­ware.

Trade-offs · If you delete your stored pri­vate key, it means you have to use the command-line client rather than the web in­ter­face. Which is way less civilian-friendly. This is a very, very in­ter­est­ing trade-off. I’m think­ing Key­base is go­ing to have to pub­lish some­thing about their le­gal and po­lit­i­cal de­fen­sive mea­sures. ¶

If you’re us­ing the command-line key­base tool on OS X, you can store your passphrase in the Mac key­chain, so any com­mands that need your passphrase Just Work. So for peo­ple who are handy with the com­mand line, it’s ac­tu­al­ly more con­ve­nient then the Web for­m, which re­quires you to type in the passphrase, or paste it from your pass­word man­ager.