4 ms·

I was an avid user of StandardNotes (particularly a fan of the minimalism), but I've since been really taken by Joplin[0] and end up evangelizing for it wheneve

I was an avid user of StandardNotes (particularly a fan of the minimalism), but I've since been really taken by Joplin[0] and end up evangelizing for it whenever I can. Joplin's FOSS, syncs using a number of methods, support E2E (I'm no crypto expert, but they use AES in OCB mode which seems appropriate), and supports things like LaTeX out of the box. Oh, and it has nice things like mobile apps and web snip extensions for browsers. Collaboration is apparently on the radar, but doesn't currently exist in a meaningful way. [0] https://joplin.cozic.net/ https://joplin.cozic.net/ EDIT: I had cast some vague arm-chair dispersions on StandardNote's crypto claims which I've removed in light of the comment below regarding a security audit. Apologies for not informing myself on the matter!

mobitar 8y ago
Standard Notes’ cryptography was audited by a third party security firm: https://listed.standardnotes.org/@sn/821/announcing-our-security-audit-results https://listed.standardnotes.org/@sn/821/announcing-our-secu...
- jszymborski 8y ago
  That's actually awesome, was not aware.
blattimwind 8y ago
Applications advertising use of AES is generally a good red flag that they're rolling some sort of custom, broken crypto. Fortunately, neither seems to be the case with joplin.
- jszymborski 8y ago
  I mostly was noting that they were using a recognised authenticated AES mode instead of a custom alternative which you rightly identify as almost certainly being broken crypto :P
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    No, I mean when an application advertises AES, then they often roll their own protocol, which is broken until proven otherwise (taught by experience). Applications advertising use of an existing protocol (e.g. "Uses [signal/noise/whatever protocol] for end-to-end encryption") are less likely to be broken than those rolling their own.
    - laurent123456 8y ago
      For the record, I'm using SJCL [0] for encryption based on the parameters they suggest, and whenever random numbers are needed I use cryptographically secure ones, so overall I think it should be reasonably secure. I would welcome any third-party audit though. There's some more info about E2EE in Joplin there - https://joplin.cozic.net/spec/ https://joplin.cozic.net/spec/ [0] http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/ http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/

mobitar 8y ago

Standard Notes’ cryptography was audited by a third party security firm: https://listed.standardnotes.org/@sn/821/announcing-our-security-audit-results https://listed.standardnotes.org/@sn/821/announcing-our-secu...

jszymborski 8y ago
That's actually awesome, was not aware.

blattimwind 8y ago

Applications advertising use of AES is generally a good red flag that they're rolling some sort of custom, broken crypto. Fortunately, neither seems to be the case with joplin.

jszymborski 8y ago
I mostly was noting that they were using a recognised authenticated AES mode instead of a custom alternative which you rightly identify as almost certainly being broken crypto :P
- blattimwind 8y ago
  No, I mean when an application advertises AES, then they often roll their own protocol, which is broken until proven otherwise (taught by experience). Applications advertising use of an existing protocol (e.g. "Uses [signal/noise/whatever protocol] for end-to-end encryption") are less likely to be broken than those rolling their own.
  - laurent123456 8y ago
    For the record, I'm using SJCL [0] for encryption based on the parameters they suggest, and whenever random numbers are needed I use cryptographically secure ones, so overall I think it should be reasonably secure. I would welcome any third-party audit though. There's some more info about E2EE in Joplin there - https://joplin.cozic.net/spec/ https://joplin.cozic.net/spec/ [0] http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/ http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/