While useful it needs a big red warning to potential leakers. If they were personally served documents (such as via email, while logged in, etc) there really isn't much that can be done to ascertain the safety of leaking it. It's not even safe if there are two or more leakers and they "compare notes" to try and "clean" something for release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitor_tracing#Watermarking
https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3597
The watermark can even be contained in the wording itself (multiple versions of sentences, word choice etc stores the entropy). The only moderately safe thing to leak would be a pure text full paraphrasing of the material. But that wouldn't inspire much trust as a source.
Seems like a similar but less elegant solution as parsing and normalization to a “safe” subset but not just blasting it to pixels.
https://github.com/caradoc-org/caradoc
http://spw16.langsec.org/slides/guillaume-endignoux-slides.p...
Heh, I've seen this a bunch of times and it's of interest to me, but honestly? It's sooooo limiting by being an interface without a complementary command line tool. Like, I'd like to put this into some workflows but it doesn't really make sense to without using something like pyautogui. But maybe I'm missing something hidden in the documentation.
It seems to meant for end-users like journalists processing files individually like e-mail attachments.
It doesn't seem to be meant for usage at scale -- it's not for general-purpose conversion, as the resulting files are huge, will have OCR errors, etc.
I'm the target audience for this sort of tool. :)
https://github.com/freedomofpress/dangerzone/blob/main/dange...
How hard did you look the other times?
Not much further than their documentation, friend! But thanks for finding that, that's actually super helpful! I hope somebody puts in a pr for updating the documentation to make it clear what functionality their tool has.
I can show you the link for how to do that too if needed.
Yes please! And another helping of snark, please.
Why not just open it inside of and print to a static image output within a fully sandboxed Docker container?
A handy side use for this is compressing PDFs.
For some reason, printing 1 page of an Excel or Word document to a PDF often gets up to around 4MB in size. Passing it through this compresses it quite well.
Just ran a quick test:
- 1-page Excel PDF export: 3.7MB
- Processing with Dangerzone (OCR enabled): 131KB
I personally just upload them to google drive. It would be a serious pwn if they could somehow still do a compromise through google drive.
Firefox has a builtin PDF reader, PDF.js, that resides inside of the Javascript sandbox. In theory, it's as safe as loading a webpage.
Does google drive apply any transformation over the PDF, or are you effectively loading the same document in your browser on the round trip?
They have some kind of virus scanner for files you open via a share link. Not sure about the ones you have stored on your own drive unshared.
But probably the main security here is just using the chrome pdf viewer instead of the adobe one. Which you can do without google drive. The browser PDF viewers ignore all the strange and risky parts of the PDF spec that would likely be exploited.
I often view PDFs in Drive, and it's definitely not just displaying the document with the native web browser. It is rendered with their "Drive renderer", whatever that is. They don't even display a simple .txt file natively in the browser.
Do you have any specifics on what Drive does? Any examples of it fixing embedded virii? Or is this blind assumption?
I assume they mean "upload to drive and use the web based reader to view the PDF," not "upload to drive and download it again"
And what special sauce does the web preview use? At some point, someone has to actually parse and process the data. I feel like on a tech site like Hacker News, speculating that Google has somehow done a perfect job of preventing malicious PDFs beckons the question: how do you actually do that and prove that it's safe? And is that even possible in perpetuity?
It's an image sent from Google.
Is there some reason why just viewing the PDF with a FLOSS, limited PDF viewer (e.g. atril) would not accomplish the same level of safety? What can a "dangerous PDF" do inside atril?
It looks like atril is mostly written in C:
https://github.com/mate-desktop/atril
A crafted PDF can potentially exploit a bug in atril to compromise the recipient's computer since writing memory-safe C is difficult. This approach was famously used by a malware vendor to exploit iMessage through a compressed image format that's part of the PDF standard:
https://projectzero.google/2021/12/a-deep-dive-into-nso-zero...
This is why Firefox chose to implement a custom PDF reader in pure JS for better sandboxing leveraging the existing browser JS sandboxing. As a side effect, it's been a helpful JS library for embedding PDFs on websites.
The Chrome PDF parser, originating from Foxit (now open-sourced as PDFium), has been the source of many exploits in Chrome itself over the years.
Shameless self promotion: preview.ninja is a site I built that does this and supports 300+ file formats. I'm currently weekend coding version 2.0 which will support 500+ formats and allow direct data extraction in addition to safe viewing.
It is a passion project and will always be free because commercial CDR[1] solutions are insanely expensive and everyone should have access to the tools to compute securely.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Disarm_%26_Reconstruct...
It's a neat program, but what's the use for JPGs and PNGs?
There are some neat detection bypass / compromise methods using various image formats, including PNG [0] and SVG [1]!
I imagine that folks like journalists could have that type of attack in their threat model, and EFF already do a lot of great stuff in this space :)
0. https://isc.sans.edu/diary/31998
1. https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudforce-one/research/svgs-the-...
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
This doesn't seem to be designed for leakers, i.e. people sending PDF's -- it's specifically for people receiving untrusted files, i.e. journalists.
And specifically about them not being hacked by malicious code. I'm not seeing anything that suggests it's about trying to remove traces of a file's origin.
I don't see why it would need a warning for something it's not designed for at all.
It would be natural for a leaker to assume that the PDF contains something "extra" and to try and and remove it with this method. It may not occur to them that this something extra could be part of the content they are going to get back.
From the tool description linked:
> Dangerzone works like this: You give it a document that you don't know if you can trust (for example, an email attachment). Inside of a sandbox, Dangerzone converts the document to a PDF (if it isn't already one), and then converts the PDF into raw pixel data: a huge list of RGB color values for each page. Then, outside of the sandbox, Dangerzone takes this pixel data and converts it back into a PDF.
With this in mind, Dangerzone wouldn't even remove conventional watermarks (that inlay small amounts of text on the image).
I think the "freedomofpress" GitHub repo primed you to think about protecting someone leaking to journalists, but really it's designed to keep journalists (and other security-minded folk) safe from untrusted attachments.
The official website -- https://dangerzone.rocks/ -- is a lot more clear about exactly what the tool does. It removes malware, removes network requests, supports various filetypes, and is open source.
Their about page ( https://dangerzone.rocks/about/ ) shows common use cases for journalists and others.
Why not leak a dataset of N full text paraphrasings of the material, together with a zero-knowledge proof of how to take one of the paraphrasings and specifically "adjust" it to the real document (revealed in private to trusted asking parties)? Then the leaker can prove they released "at least the one true leak" without incriminating themselves. There is a cryptographic solution to this issue.
I seem to remember Yahoo finance (I think it was them, maybe someone else) introducing benign errors into their market data feeds, to prevent scraping. This lead to people doing 3 requests instead of just 1, to correct the errors, which was very expensive for them, so they turned it off.
I don't think watermarking is a winning game for the watermarker, with enough copies any errors can be cancelled.
> I don't think watermarking is a winning game for the watermarker, with enough copies any errors can be cancelled.
This is a very common assumption that turns out to be false.
There are Tardos probabilistic codes (see the paper I linked) which have the watermark scale as the square of the traitor count.
For example, with a watermark of just 400 bits, 4 traitors (who try their best to corrupt the watermark) will stand out enough to merit investigation and with 800 bits be accused without any doubt. This is for a binary alphabet, with text you can generate a bigger alphabet and have shorter watermarks.
These are typically intended for tracing pirated content, so they carry the so-called Marking Assumption (if given two or more versions of a piece of content, you must choose one. A pirate isn't going to corrupt or remove a piece of video, that would be unsuitable for leaking). So it would likely be possible to get better results with documents, may require larger watermarks to get such traitors reliably.
This was a fascinating read, thanks for posting.
I'm not totally convinced that the threat model is realistic. The watermarker has to embed the watermark, the only place to do that is in the least significant bits of whatever the message is. If it's an audio file then the least significant bits of each sample would work. If it's a video file then the LSBs in a DCT bin may also be unnoticeable. It can really only go in certain places, without it affecting the content in a meaningful way. If it's in a header, or separate known location, then the pirate can just delete those bits.
The threat model presented says the pirates have to go with one of the copies, or only correct errors that are different between 2 copies. That's the part that I don't think is realistic. If the pirates knew that the file was marked, and the scheme used to mark it, but didn't know the key (a standard threat model for things like encryption), then they could inject their own noise into wherever the watermark could be hiding, and now the problem is the watermarker trying to send a message on a noisy channel, where the pirates have a jammer. I don't even think you have to sacrifice quality, since the copy you have already has noise, and you just need to inject the same amount (or more).