9 ms·

That's a fair point, but the fact that there's yet another protocol, not mentioned on the XMPP E2E wiki, kinda plays into the point itself: XMPP has E2E maybe w

by lvh 8y ago

That's a fair point, but the fact that there's yet another protocol, not mentioned on the XMPP E2E wiki, kinda plays into the point itself: XMPP has E2E maybe with a bunch of random protocols and the stars (and the people you talk with) need to align _just right_ for all of it to work. I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses WhatsApp and I know what they get, and at this point only XMPP people use XMPP (explicitly) and maybe they get some kind of E2E but who knows which one and what properties that has.

vader1 8y ago
Fair enough, but this is kind of inherent for anything based on open standards. Was your email encrypted? It depends on whether the sending and receiving mailserver support TLS. Is your website visit perfect-forward-secret? Depends on whether your browser and the webserver support modern cipher suites. Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH. These are valid challenges, but moving to propietary and centralized solutions instead is throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Was your WhatsApp conversation encrypted? You honestly can't know, and even if it is right now, Facebook could disable Whatsapp's e2e encryption at any time without you even noticing. FWIW, OMEMO has been the (only) de facto encryption mechanism for modern XMPP clients in the last couple of years, and most clients that support it clearly distinguish encrypted and non-encrypted messages.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  > Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH. DNSSEC doesn't encrypt, it only signs.
- lvh 8y ago
  How do I know my XMPP client is actually doing what it says? Are you saying the provenance for my XMPP client is fundamentally better than that of the WhatsApp app?
  - seba_dos1 8y ago
    OMEMO and its implementation in Conversations has been security audited by an independent entity. Other than that, sure, you have no guarantees, yet it's still desirable for such critical security components to be free, or at least "open source".
    - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
      > it's still desirable for such critical security components to be free, or at least "open source". Why the scare quotes? What about software's source code being available makes it more desirable for your non-technical users who will never modify their software?
      - seba_dos1 8y ago
        Even though I'm not a "non-technical" user, I don't review crypto of my XMPP client. And that's fine, I know a few people that did and I trust them enough. This way I don't have to trust an entity that may benefit from being able to access my messages. Also, this is a fallacy. Just because "typical user" won't care or won't be able to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to build and popularize platforms that do right things. Of course it also has to be good at what users actually do care for to have any chance of taking off, but that's not the point.
        CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        > Also, this is a fallacy. What is a fallacy? I asked a question. Non-technical users will never modify their software. The act of doing so would recategorize them as "technical". I don't see any fallacy here? The most likely interpretation of your comment is, you're assuming an argument that I am not making. > Just because "typical user" won't care or won't be able to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to build and popularize platforms that do right things. That's a disagreement with an argument I did not make. > Of course it also has to be good at what users actually do care for to have any chance of taking off, but that's not the point. What is the point, even? I just asked how something being "open source" (to borrow the scare quotes) is more desirable to users who do not read/write software code? What is their incentive supposed to be to prioritize open source over proprietary software? That's not an argument. It's certainly not a fallacious one. > Even though I'm not a "non-technical" user, I don't review crypto of my XMPP client. Little bit of background: I'm the sort of person who would review the crypto of an XMPP client. > And that's fine, I know a few people that did and I trust them enough. This way I don't have to trust an entity that may benefit from being able to access my messages. Cool, let's ask an trustworthy expert then. I can think of no finer expert to chime in on this discussion than JP Aumasson, one of the co-authors of SipHash and BLAKE2, who wrote the book Serious Cryptography and conducted many cryptography audits in his career. https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2018/10/02/open-source-crypto-is-no-better-than-closed-source-crypto/ https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2018/10/02/open-source... Oh.
seba_dos1 8y ago
These days in practice there are just two E2E protocols in XMPP: OMEMO and OpenPGP, with OMEMO being the default in clients that opt into E2E-by-default and PGP being used by those who know why and when they're using it. Additionally, some clients still implement OTR, and that's pretty much it.
SamWhited 8y ago
The nice thing about wikis is that they're editable :) thanks for pointing out that page though, I've updated it a tiny bit (and will do more if I can figure out media wiki's table syntax). That is, assuming you meant: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_E2E_Security https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_E2E_Security
Leace 8y ago
> I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses WhatsApp and I know what they get, and at this point only XMPP people use XMPP (explicitly) and maybe they get some kind of E2E but who knows which one and what properties that has. That sentence reveals that you only know WhatsApp. Imagine this argument: > I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses Google Chrome and I know what they get, [the other people] maybe they get some kind of security but who knows which one and what properties that has.

by lvh 8y ago

vader1 8y ago

Fair enough, but this is kind of inherent for anything based on open standards. Was your email encrypted? It depends on whether the sending and receiving mailserver support TLS. Is your website visit perfect-forward-secret? Depends on whether your browser and the webserver support modern cipher suites. Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH. These are valid challenges, but moving to propietary and centralized solutions instead is throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Was your WhatsApp conversation encrypted? You honestly can't know, and even if it is right now, Facebook could disable Whatsapp's e2e encryption at any time without you even noticing. FWIW, OMEMO has been the (only) de facto encryption mechanism for modern XMPP clients in the last couple of years, and most clients that support it clearly distinguish encrypted and non-encrypted messages.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
> Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH. DNSSEC doesn't encrypt, it only signs.
lvh 8y ago
How do I know my XMPP client is actually doing what it says? Are you saying the provenance for my XMPP client is fundamentally better than that of the WhatsApp app?
- seba_dos1 8y ago
  OMEMO and its implementation in Conversations has been security audited by an independent entity. Other than that, sure, you have no guarantees, yet it's still desirable for such critical security components to be free, or at least "open source".
  - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
    > it's still desirable for such critical security components to be free, or at least "open source". Why the scare quotes? What about software's source code being available makes it more desirable for your non-technical users who will never modify their software?
    - seba_dos1 8y ago
      Even though I'm not a "non-technical" user, I don't review crypto of my XMPP client. And that's fine, I know a few people that did and I trust them enough. This way I don't have to trust an entity that may benefit from being able to access my messages. Also, this is a fallacy. Just because "typical user" won't care or won't be able to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to build and popularize platforms that do right things. Of course it also has to be good at what users actually do care for to have any chance of taking off, but that's not the point.
      - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
        > Also, this is a fallacy. What is a fallacy? I asked a question. Non-technical users will never modify their software. The act of doing so would recategorize them as "technical". I don't see any fallacy here? The most likely interpretation of your comment is, you're assuming an argument that I am not making. > Just because "typical user" won't care or won't be able to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to build and popularize platforms that do right things. That's a disagreement with an argument I did not make. > Of course it also has to be good at what users actually do care for to have any chance of taking off, but that's not the point. What is the point, even? I just asked how something being "open source" (to borrow the scare quotes) is more desirable to users who do not read/write software code? What is their incentive supposed to be to prioritize open source over proprietary software? That's not an argument. It's certainly not a fallacious one. > Even though I'm not a "non-technical" user, I don't review crypto of my XMPP client. Little bit of background: I'm the sort of person who would review the crypto of an XMPP client. > And that's fine, I know a few people that did and I trust them enough. This way I don't have to trust an entity that may benefit from being able to access my messages. Cool, let's ask an trustworthy expert then. I can think of no finer expert to chime in on this discussion than JP Aumasson, one of the co-authors of SipHash and BLAKE2, who wrote the book Serious Cryptography and conducted many cryptography audits in his career. https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2018/10/02/open-source-crypto-is-no-better-than-closed-source-crypto/ https://research.kudelskisecurity.com/2018/10/02/open-source... Oh.

seba_dos1 8y ago

These days in practice there are just two E2E protocols in XMPP: OMEMO and OpenPGP, with OMEMO being the default in clients that opt into E2E-by-default and PGP being used by those who know why and when they're using it. Additionally, some clients still implement OTR, and that's pretty much it.

SamWhited 8y ago

The nice thing about wikis is that they're editable :) thanks for pointing out that page though, I've updated it a tiny bit (and will do more if I can figure out media wiki's table syntax). That is, assuming you meant: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_E2E_Security https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/XMPP_E2E_Security

Leace 8y ago

> I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses WhatsApp and I know what they get, and at this point only XMPP people use XMPP (explicitly) and maybe they get some kind of E2E but who knows which one and what properties that has. That sentence reveals that you only know WhatsApp. Imagine this argument: > I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses Google Chrome and I know what they get, [the other people] maybe they get some kind of security but who knows which one and what properties that has.