4 ms·
> Power users make sure its save for them, if it is, it is save for 'normal' users as well. Power users can make sure the code they're running is safe for them
by Veratyr 9y ago
> Power users make sure its save for them, if it is, it is save for 'normal' users as well.
Power users can make sure the code they're running is safe for them. There's no guarantee that Signal for example is running the same code they release to others.
- lorenzhs 9y agoSignal for Android has reproducible builds, so you can verify that the version on the Play Store matches the code you audited.
- krallja 9y agoHow does that help you verify what is running on the server?
- nickpsecurity 9y agoThey can use trusted computing or HSM tech for that. They have the money but probably won't spend it.
- closeparen 9y agoBut they don't, so why do they get points for having an open source server?
- nickpsecurity 9y agoFor a full solution, it would be a start to what they needed. The main benefit of an open-source server is that people can audit it for vulnerabilities. As in, they get free to cheap labor to reduce their liabilities. People might also submit extensions they find useful. The usual benefits of FOSS for suppliers.
- threeseed 9y agoNone of that addresses the point. Without third party, independent verification of their servers and the code that is running open source provides limited (if any) improvements to privacy and security.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoThat's part of the point rather than separate. A closed system without any way to prove it's running something often can't to get 3rd party verification or user trust that's consistently believable. An open-source, tamper-resistant system can. Quite a bit of difference. Once verifications come in, the effects of reputation then allow users with less technical knowledge to learn what's trustworthy or not.
- smichel17 9y agoThe whole point of e2e is that you don't have to trust the server (for content; you do have to trust that they aren't saving metadata).