today at 10:07 PM
- Should a password manager warn me about reused passwords without sending things out without opt in? yes
- Should a password manager send even one byte of my data to any service, regardless of whether it is for a good intention and mathematically proven to be "safe" without opt in? I'd say no.
- So would any other product out there, be it a smart home manager or a toaster, send any of of my data, hashed or not to any 3rd party without opt in? even if it's just the byte "1" to a page called "donothing.com"? I say hell no.
- Should open source developers who are not Linus Torvalds be a bit nicer on a public issue?
- And should open source users should be less heated because "let us know if you plan to fix this or we will uninstall and fork it" deserves the "go ahead, this is open source, threats don't really help here"
We all can sometimes write a reply at the heat of the moment that we later regret. Frenk definitely realized it after the fact and I respect him owning it, apologizing, and keeping the old messages. He is right it's open source, and he doesn't owe anyone anything, but still, I believe a phoning home of any kind is violating The Principle of Least Astonishment.
today at 9:12 PM
Frenck here, I'm the one who replied on that issue.
My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been. My apologies. I've posted a follow-up on the issue.
As it turns out, the check can already be turned off after all:
ha security options --pwned=false
Only the first 5 characters of a SHA-1 hash go to HIBP, and the matching happens locally: https://github.com/home-assistant/supervisor/blob/main/super...
Our documentation should have explained all of this, including how to turn it off. We'll get that updated.
today at 9:47 PM
I do get the sense that you're not malicious, just that maybe you're not seeing this from the standpoint of someone that assigns a higher value to some elements of privacy. In this case, your user base expects a home automation system. They do not expect that system to scan their computer for passwords, regardless of how "safely" the home automation system were to behave.
You might have a heart of gold, and just be having an off day due to reasons, so I hope people cut you some slack, but if I were you I'd update this feature to be opt-in and conspicuous, immediately
today at 9:38 PM
Asking basically the same thing as the sibling replies, but hopefully in a less aggressive way: can you elaborate on what led you to reply like that in the first place? As someone with no horse in the race (I don't use Home Assistant), the first reply you gave genuinely does seem like it was intended in good faith, even if it was not satisfying to the user, and I can understand that angry users are not fun to interact with, but I'm struggling to wrap my head around why your second reply was "This issue is closed as won't fix" without any elaboration about why. The explanation that seems most likely to me is that you were annoyed at the user and decided not to spend any time looking into the issue, which would be unfortunate but maybe understandable if that's what you're apologizing for. Without any explanation about why you quickly dismissed and then suddenly turned around and changed your mind later though, I think you've risked the apology coming across more as damage control than genuine regret.
today at 9:29 PM
why lying on your first reply? you mentioned 1Password did the same, in an attempt to make yourself "less guilty", but you failed to realize 1Password doesn't enable that option automatically without consent, and in some cases this option is periodically DISABLED automatically. address this, please, it's pretty embarrassing to lie like this just to cover y'all's ass.
today at 9:37 PM
From my understanding, they seem to be under a lot of stress/pressure lately.
I'm not exactly sure why, but the stuff that happens tells that story (to me at least).
Barking at frenck on a Friday at 11.30PM like this is probably not the right thing to do.
today at 9:38 PM
Hehe not really. I'm also just enjoying my hobby on a Saturday evening honestly :)
But you are right, it is time to head downstairs for a beer with Mrs. Frenck.
../Frenck
today at 10:06 PM
good bye
today at 10:11 PM
People accusing others of lying all the time is a major problem in current societal discourse.
Itās not a lie if the speaker believes it to be true; itās just a mistake. A lie must have the intention to mislead behind it.
I donāt dispute that there is a lot of, perhaps way more, lying going on, especially in politics now, but letās not both inflame opinions and cheapen the word ālieā by just using it for non-deliberate falsehoods.
today at 9:34 PM
Not a lie, but I was wrong on that one. I'm happy to admit that.
I've used 1Password's Watchtower for so many years that I assumed the breached password check was just part of it. After your reply I looked it up and learned it's actually a setting in their privacy preferences, so my comparison was off.
../Frenck
today at 9:39 PM
> My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been. My apologies.
Iām curious what made you change your mind, perhaps seeing this getting traction on hn?
today at 9:31 PM
> Only the first 5 characters of a SHA-1 hash go to HIBP
Some would consider the first five characters being sent over the internet to be 'your secret leaving your system'.
Some would consider phoning home to a remote server to be worrisome. It's home assistant not cloud assistant.
today at 9:20 PM
>As it turns out, the check can already be turned off
Problem solved!
>My replies there were more dismissive than they should have been
What about this one?
today at 8:56 PM
Toxic developers turned me off Home Assistant. The same developer is the star of this issue: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27505277
today at 9:45 PM
Was thinking of setting my own assistant using Home Assistant to replace the Google Home device I got rid of. Looks like I should slow down and take a closer look at this.
As someone whose smart home need is minimal -- I just use it to turn on/off lights with voice -- I'd rather have nothing than support such behavior.
today at 10:15 PM
Nothing and no one is perfect, but Home Assistant is orders of magnitude better than any other home automation suite. The fact that there's enough transparency for this to be discovered, for this conversation to happen, and for the maintainer to publicly apologize is evidence of that.
today at 9:48 PM
interesting that the crux of the Nix dispute was about how he wanted to self-modify the HA after install, and the crux of the current dispute is how HA should be able to scan your secrets and upload truncated hashes
It's not a good look taken together
today at 9:46 PM
Dude that is
a) five years ago
b) nothing to be ashamed of, honestly
c) dumb drama
This is bad faith. You could reference it in good faith as context, but that is not what you are doing.
today at 9:53 PM
I found it helpful and informative.
today at 10:00 PM
Then, respectfully, your judgement is subpar.
You people are mad about the wrong things.
There is nothing in that 5 year old thread that goes beyond standard issue friction between someone who created something and someone who wants to administrate something.
There is stuff to be mad about, but that does not include a dev five years ago telling the memeOS "hey can you maybe please don't do this. I am worries that it will cause more work for me if you do that"
today at 10:04 PM
That isn't respectful at all. We don't have to agree with you about this.
I'm not mad about anything, but I wouldn't need your permission to be so.
I've learned from this thread that I don't want to use HA in the future.
today at 10:09 PM
today at 10:11 PM
Uh? Yes you don't have to?
Who said that you would have?
today at 9:23 PM
Hah, his profile sure has a lot of bullshit about being human and positivity...
today at 10:09 PM
This feature should be opt-in, but can someone explain how this is a security concern? I don't understand how it would be an actual security risk to share the first 5 digits of the sha256 of my passwords.
today at 10:21 PM
I think the main issue is that you don't expect a service to send anything related to your data without letting you know. Even if it's a ping "alive" sent to a server they own.
Imagine if your smart toilet would just send a small anonymized message to a urine sampling analysis service so it can let you you know your cholesterol levels are a bit high, totally anonymous, totally for your benefit. Maybe it's a great feature, but would anyone expect this to happen without consent / opt in?
today at 8:56 PM
You may find this unasked for scan humiliating, but we can mathematically prove we're not humiliating you. Any feelings of discomfort or humiliation are therefore invalid and should be set aside.
Edit: I'm sure a greater good argument can be made. I just don't think they are making it in a way that justifies the invasiveness.
today at 9:02 PM
It sounds like the dev's reason for rejecting the issue is that the issue was opened on the documentation repo rather than the code repo.
On the one hand, it's understandable. No amount of documentation changes will fix the issue.
On the other hand, it's a pretty abrasive response. It wouldn't have taken any more effort to be a little more helpful and direct OP to the right repo: "Sorry, this is the wrong place for this to be addressed. Please bring it up here instead [link]."
today at 9:34 PM
If you actually read through, the option to disable the functionality was already presentā¦ just not documented. So it seems the documentation repo was the correct place to open it
today at 9:01 PM
(For missing context from this bare link to an issue with no context provided by the submitter ā Home Assistant apparently integrated the same Have I Been Pwned safe scanning process that many other password managers have.)
I have a great deal of sympathy for them refusing to engage; decisive software creators are far less palatable to an entitled swarm of disagreement, and that same decisiveness is what makes the best software. Perhaps in U.S. culture, refusal with a smile and a reassurance that āWeāre Listeningā is something folks feel entitled to, but in other areas of the world, demanding a stranger change their mind once itās made up earns only mockery or pity. To those cultures, this GitHub is a comedy-farce, and I laughed out loud upon reading it ā not because I necessarily agree with the projectās decision, but because I agree culturally with their tone and handling of what some view as blatant immaturity: a final flat refusal, closing the door, and getting back to work.
today at 8:45 PM
Tough one. I get the intention but this should've been opt-in.
today at 9:20 PM
>>please let us know so we can uninstall and fork
>Sorry, these are not statements we can work with. Doing such threats and trying to intimidate it not going to bring you anywhere. If you want to do a
just wanted to add an outsider perspective here, not trying to add wood to the fire
but i donāt think itās inappropriate or āa threatā to let the dev know the user can stop using the software.
today at 9:31 PM
Is it inappropriate? Not really. Is it a threat? Yeah, it really is. āIām going to stop using your software if you donāt change thisā is a threat. āIām going to fork it and ship a competing productā is a stronger threat.
It was a clear attempt to sway with intimidation. It was done politely but that doesnāt change what it was. (The dev had already closed as wonāt fix, too, so they had preemptively answered.)
today at 10:08 PM
today at 9:59 PM
āhey, X is a dealbreaker for me, if this is not fixed please let me know so I can look for someone elseā
āhow dare you threaten me?ā
I understand how one might feel attacked by an ultimatum, but a policy of rejecting ultimatums altogether only has the benefit of keeping pride intact, on the other hand it discourages people in your life from giving you a last chance, from communicating why they are leaving, and for letting them come back if the parting was amicable
best response is to just communicate you are not fixing X and parting ways amicably, no hard feelings. not only is it beneficial for the ultimated party, but itās fair for the ultimating party, who is absolutely in their own right to rescind their voluntary relationship, in no way is it a threat to communicate that possibility, because a threat implies violence or damage.
today at 10:10 PM
An ultimatum is a threat. Thatās literally the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum
Again, I did not say the threat in this case was inappropriate. Itās totally legitimate to say āthis doesnāt work for me; change it or Iām outā. But it is a threat. We should be honest with what we are doing. If nothing else it makes it easier to understand (and predict) a defensive reaction when we understand and acknowledge a threat is being delivered.
today at 9:03 PM
Giving the home assistant core developers the benefit of the doubt, I am sure there are good intentions here. But if they are interested in adding new security features, adding support for phishing-resistant multi factor authentication (passkeys) would be much more valuable. Users have been asking for it for some time, and even submitted patches, which were rejected.
today at 9:04 PM
This feature has been around for 5 years... https://github.com/home-assistant/home-assistant.io/blob/cur...
today at 9:07 PM
That makes it even worse. A leak is still a leak even when you haven't notice it. Personally I use HIBP but I would still be annoyed to learn a system I installed mainly for privacy was sending private data to a third party by default.
today at 9:12 PM
The feature is not the problem.
today at 9:35 PM
So, wait, these are secrets that are already given to h-a, hashed, and just the first five characters of the hash sent up..?
Yeah, I agree with the maintainer, this strikes me as outrage theater over any actual problem, no?
today at 8:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if that integration is outright illegal in EU due to GDPR, thus putting HIBP in trouble for ingesting PII without any legal legitimacy.
And the first reply being "It is not an invasion of privacy" just shows incompetence on privacy topics. It is never a valid answer.
Which is really concerning, for the lead developer of a home automation system that "fights for the fundamental principle of privacy" as per their mission statement.
today at 9:28 PM
It's certainly an overstep, but just the hash they're sending wouldn't be PII.
today at 10:00 PM
The hash itself is irrelevant.
The question is what PII does HIBP collect on submission (eg IP address), and with whose consent, and for which purposes?
All that should be explained in excruciating detail in the ticket and in the documentation, to begin with.
today at 9:32 PM
What PII do you think is being sent to HIBP?
today at 9:24 PM
I am curious thought that how it would be illegal according to GDPR. They are hashed after all, and the same hash is not used for authentication.
today at 9:51 PM
Undoing personal information for a purpose different than the purpose for which it was collected.
today at 9:25 PM
Here we have the classic if you want something to happen in the corporate world, make it go viral on the internet. Except, humans will be humans and it played out in open source.
In this case, frenck most certainly backtracked because they realized they were on the front page of HN and did not want the heat.
today at 10:07 PM
To be fair, nabu casa comms kinda leave not many other options than stuff like this happening, as the general strategy they employ could be described with the single word "tarpit".
I'm torn. And sad.
today at 8:51 PM
> If this is all reason for you to uninstall and fork... So be it, it is open source after all.
what a petty answer. "just fork it bro".
today at 9:21 PM
Working on a fork already: Lets spend some tokens! :)
today at 8:48 PM
I have another tab open where I am about to buy a home assistant green and start a journey of probably-pointless automations. This is giving me pause. Not about sending hashes to haveibeenpwned, but about the response this got on github.
today at 9:05 PM
The dev comes as self-serving. Not what youād expect to see. Calls it heated when he himself caused it with their tone deaf responseā¦ itās next level.
today at 9:20 PM
The same dev doesn't even like others packaging his open source libs.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/126326
today at 9:10 PM
> The dev comes as self-serving
What, do you not include links to every single one of your social media accounts in every single post you make on GitHub? I think this is a very cool and normal thing, and not a concerning red flag about narcissistic tendencies at all.
today at 9:40 PM
Frenck is the worst part of Home Assistant. He shits on so many things with just a hand wave and no attempt at justification.
today at 8:47 PM
Awfully tone deaf responses
today at 8:45 PM
And that kids is a clear example of how not to interact with people online.
today at 8:48 PM
Yeah not a good look. This is probably the worst way to handle community feedback.
today at 9:03 PM
I mean, none of them behaved like an adult.
It's pretty clear that the maintainer should've handled it better but I'd be lying if I said I never felt like telling a petulant user off. The problem is he didn't handle it professionally.
today at 9:19 PM
Maybe he shouldnāt be accessing peopleās passwords. If you start looking into someoneās wallet you can expect an abrasive response.
today at 9:29 PM
Well, I didn't check the git history so I can't confirm or deny that he implemented the feature, in any case, if you read the comment about how the passwords are anonymized it sounds pretty reasonable.
Leaving that aside, even if you diagree with it you (the user) are not entitled to anything, especially not entitled to have an attitude.
Just think about it differently, what do you think would happen if you do the same in the real world?
I'm pretty sure in the best case scenario you may be asked to leave and in the worst case scenario you may be "escorted" out of the premises.
A little bit of politeness goes a long way.
today at 9:26 PM
The developer's reply was very reasonable and measured. The user, on the other hand, was very rude.
today at 9:27 PM
today at 9:19 PM
[flagged]
today at 8:43 PM
[dead]