4 ms·
But.. But! Everyone in the geek press said it's "end to end" encrypted! That must mean it's totally safe! I'm sure everyone is reading the source code and buil
by cyberpunk 10y ago
But.. But!
Everyone in the geek press said it's "end to end" encrypted! That must mean it's totally safe! I'm sure everyone is reading the source code and building their own clients all the time, yea? Didn't some uber hacker somewhere with a big beard say that he read all the code and it's totally fucking solid and government proof?
Surely you don't mistrust all that do you... I mean... Your seem a bit dubious. You can't be trying to say that there are people out there who are actually not buying this horseshit, that are genuinely withholding trust in these sort of 'services'?
Blasphemy! You think that there are people out there, with a basic grasp of security and cynicism, might feel offended and depressed at how easy it's been to dupe everyone like this.. Again?
Nah. I'm sure we're all totally sold on signal. Seems legit.
I mean, since all the users of such a service have pretty much zero control/visability over the code that's actually running even on their own devices which is talking to this 'service', let alone what's going on on the servers (in some N.American datacentre, probably super secure...) might raise a few eyebrows, but it doesn't really change the fact that we're talking abiut END TO END encryption that someone said was totally 'secure'. And even the media have pushed a few stories about how evil criminals are using it to evade monitoring..
No, I'm not sure I'm on your side. This is clearly totally secure and no one could possibly abuse this kind of thing..
Right?.... Right?
starts crying and loads the rifle
- wonks 10y agoThe lack of federation is unnerving, but the main server-less alternative I know of is PGP or maybe OTR, and PGP is way too hard for most people IMO. Also, OTR doesn't trust the fingerprint from first messages, so even that introduces an extra hoop to jump through.
- joecool1029 10y agoFor E2E? there's essentially PGP (sucks, see thread from the other day. worst user experience and questionable longterm security), OTR (most used, still annoying to have to re-establish sessions on restart, no multi-device), and OMEMO (based on signal, should be the future for XMPP). You could include most proprietary solutions like iMessage that usually miss authentication or are done unsafely. OTR not trusting fingerprint is the default case for any authenticated standard. gnupg requires that you set the trust on a key. Signal allows it initially, warns if it changes. For all the above though, they aren't a packaged solution that is user friendly. Conversations is a great android client, but there's sadly nothing comparable on iOS (chatsecure, but it's alpha status still). The desktop situation is hit and miss too (I was a pidgin user and moved to bitlbee for OTR, still don't have an omemo solution... though my setup doesn't need it through a TLS secured ZNC).
- SamWhited 10y agoIt's fairly new, but OMEMO was just officially published (now that there are free specs available to reference and everyone can be sure there won't be weird legal trouble later), and Conversations (an XMPP client for Android) has just started using a new Trust model (https://gultsch.de/trust.html https://gultsch.de/trust.html). It's early days, but I can see this being a good compromise between security and ease of use (like Signal). We'll see.