this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
11 points (92.3% liked)

Privacy

34309 readers
1848 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Because it's kind of hard! Even if I follow their instructions. Maybe I'm just dumb . . . 🙁

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

From Mullvad support:

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If it is hard, it is usually unnecessary. Unless it is a critical software (like a firmware update), or you suspect that somebody manipilates your traffic (which is highly unlikely on https sites)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Not necessarily traffic. Often download sites use mirrors to serve you the download. Sometimes those links are provided via a CDN which can be forced to comply to LEA or some other static hosted mirrors which are often hosted by others. The second part is more likely on community managed software.

So either traffic or the server/CDN behind the link. Happened before.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Signature verification protects you against malicious actors. Generally its not critical, but if you're worried about the source you're getting software from, then I highly recommend that you verify the signature. Ideally, you're given an asc file with the distribution and assuming you have PGP installed (and have a key), it's pretty easy.

First you want to import the public key they are saying that they use to sign all of their distributions;

gpg --auto-key-locate nodefault,wkd --locate-keys [email protected]

Once it's in your keyring, you sign it with your own key;

gpg --sign-key [email protected]

This is you telling the keyring that you trust this exact signing key, so now when you verify anything using that signing key (no matter where you get it from) you'll get a little message saying "hey, we know who this is, this is probably safe!";

$ gpg --verify mullvad-browser-linux-x86_64-13.0.4.tar.xz.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in 'mullvad-browser-linux-x86_64-13.0.4.tar.xz'
gpg: Signature made Thu Nov 23 11:24:40 2023 CET
gpg:                using RSA key 613188FC5BE2176E3ED54901E53D989A9E2D47BF
gpg: Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <[email protected]>" [full]

In all reality, signing archives like this isn't really necessary anymore. In the early days of the internet when resources were scarce and web-servers didn't have 100% uptime, people mainly got software from FTP servers that weren't up all the time. So you have to search and hunt for software and sometimes get it from random places. This was a way for you to ensure that even though you didn't get it from an official source, that the software you were about to put on your machine wasn't messed with.

These days you're gonna get it directly from Mullvad--but even so, using signing keys protects you from MITM attacks, so that's always cool. lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you for taking the time to write all that! I did do what you described, but the RSA key I got at the end was different from what Mullvad's webpage says, which is the same as what you put, I think: 6131 . . . etc.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <[email protected]>" [full]

Did you see this notification at all when you verified the key signature?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

Yes, I got:

Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <[email protected]>" [full]

Does that mean it's ok? Maybe Mullvad just needs to update their website?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

Depending on your threat model, not very important. What are the chances that 1) someone will have hacked Mullvad’s server and installed a compromised version of the browser, and 2) you happen to download the compromised version before the hack is discovered and mitigated? ~~Also, the signature and the package appear to be on the same server, so what’s necessarily going to stop the hacker from updating the signature to match their hacked package?~~ [Edit: It’s a GPG signature, not a simple hash signature, so I guess that’s so not trivial after all.]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 18 hours ago

Right. The risk is low, but nonzero.

You'll want to make sure that the key you're validating is provided through another trusted channel, so that an attacker can't provide a bad download and have you check it against their bad key too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

That's kind of what I figured, although after following Mullvad Browser's instructions for verification, I did get two different RSA keys, if that means anything . . .

[–] [email protected] 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It is important if you care. They sign releases with the same Tor Browser key. Instructions are found on this page: https://mullvad.net/en/help/verifying-mullvad-browser-signature

You need 2 files (both are on the download page):

  • Browser file
  • Signature file

The basic process is as follows:

  1. Obtain signing key.
  2. Verify browser using signature file.

Note: Ignore warning about the key not being signed with a trusted key (we skip an unnecessary step for a begineer walkthrough)

You can double check everything I said by looking at their instructions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

Right, and I got two different RSA keys . . .

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

The important is to do it the first time. Then just upgrade the app.