6 ms·

Oh come on, 'the only secure messaging system'. Xmpp was around for ages, it is decentralised and had OTR encryption since maybe 2001

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Opt-in OTR encryption. Kind of a big difference.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  When you control your own server you kinda don't really need end to end encryption. It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages. It also degrades UX considerably: if the server does not know the contents of your message, it can't do server side archive search, you can't sync devices easily, etc.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages Trust in entities is fleeting. You trust an entity today, you might not trust it tomorrow. End-to-end encryption, in contrast, is not fleeting, as long as you trust math.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      I was actually talking about running your own server. If someone is _really_ caring about his privacy, he can allow himself to spend $2/month on it. And if someone's trust for his own service is fleeting... uh-oh.
      - jychang 6y ago
        > And if someone's trust for his own service is fleeting... uh-oh. I definitely won't trust my own code to keep me alive, if that's what's preventing a government from killing me or something. There's a very good chance my homemade server config or encryption code has a big side channel vulnerability or something.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        XMPP servers are really good these days, you know. And, I repeat, if you run your own server, you don't really need e2ee, cause the only one who can access the DB with your messages is a server operator - yourself, i this case, and why would you protect you from yourself? Also, if you are concerned about privacy, chances are, you are not a private individual and have specially trained people to install that server for you. Then again, even if you DO need encryption to transmit a critical password or something, well, XMPP clients developers know their business (at least, some of them do), so it is unlikely that you'd be able to screw up something.
        monadic2 6y ago
        > And, I repeat, if you run your own server, you don't really need e2ee, cause the only one who can access the DB with your messages is a server operator - yourself, i this case, and why would you protect you from yourself? The typical idea is being concerned that a state will physically seize your server—you know, real security and privacy concerns. > Also, if you are concerned about privacy, chances are, you are not a private individual and have specially trained people to install that server for you. Is this not ultimtely what iMessages is to people?
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        But the commenter above claimed that trust in entities is fleeting? And we have proven that Apple can read your messages if they really want to. [1] Also, if you are concerned that state will seize your server physically - then you should probably put the server to a place where it can't. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058454
        monadic2 6y ago
        Sure, trust in entities is fleeting, but they aren’t giving at better way to trust (as you are are not). I’m not sure what the point of pretending to be ignorant about encryption is supposed to do.
  - mynameisvlad 6y ago
    > It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages Which is kind of the point of all these services. > you can't sync devices easily Apple seems to handle this pretty easily with great UX. I switched to a S20 this year. iMessage is one of the only things that I truly miss about my old iPhone.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      > Apple seems to handle this pretty easily with great UX. Sigh. This again. Ok. If have end-to-end encryption, you can't read messages on newly connected devices, unless you somehow pass encryption keys to your new device. If you do not pass keys between devices, and can still read messages sent from other devices, you do not have end-to-end encryption. If the only thing you put into device when connecting is your login/password, then even if Apple does retrieve keys from your device and passes it to new device, it can pass it to themselves and gain access to your super confidential messages. So, no, Apple does not handle this pretty easily. Source: our product has _real_ end-to-end encryption, and it gives the users a rather big amount of discomfort. If you are told you have really secure messenger, but you do not enter anything but your login/password, well, I've got bad news for you. > Which is kind of the point of all these services. If your point is privacy, and you really care about it, just run your own communication server for $2/month. You have all the niceties of server side search and device sync, and none of the pain in the ass that is brought by E2EE. And if your privacy isn't worth $2/month, then you probably don't need E2EE either.
      - ricardobeat 6y ago
        According to docs and endless reporting on iMessage, the messages are end-to-end encrypted in transit. In addition to that, they are stored (optional) in your iCloud account, using a separate key, itself stored in iCloud Keychain (protected by 2FA), and this is how you recover them on a separate device. If you opt-out from iCloud backup the messages are not recoverable, can also set them to be erased after 30 days. > it can pass it to themselves and gain access to your super confidential messages They can also send your PIN, private keys, all logins and passwords to their own servers, or simply log chats from the system keyboard and UI or any of the OS layers they control. The same is true for any app running on iOS/Android. If you don't trust the OS there is no working around it in software.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sascha_sl 6y ago
Do note "readily available to consumers". XMPP never reached a level of polish outside being embedded in part-proprietary solutions that it'd be available to your average user, not to even talk about OTR.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Gtalk was polished enough. It didn't have OTR built in, but majority of users don't really need end to end encryption anyway, it only makes their life not good. Also, iMessage never reached a level of polish to work on anything not produced by Apple. If we're taking proprietary vendor specific secure services, Blackberry did it before Apple, too. So, definitely not the first and not the only.
  - derefr 6y ago
    E2E encryption is mostly for people whose lives are already not good. It only works to help those people, though, if enough “civilian” traffic is also using it that any ISP blocking it would be considered to be breaking the Internet. BBM was not E2E encrypted. BlackBerry always retained the capability to read your message traffic. Apple does not.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      > Apple does not. Well, I'm not _that_ familiar with BBM since it was never available in my country. But what makes you think Apple can't read your messages? Do you have any encryption keys that you share between devices? Or you just enter login/password on a new device and voilà all your messages are displayed to you? If that is so, I guess I'll have to tell you something... Anyway. Last time I checked, iMessage apps source code was not available, you can't verify fingerprints of your contacts in iMessage, so... how do you know Apple doesn't insert a very simple MitM agent that does e2ee both for your and your chat partner, having all messages nicely decrypted in the middle? So far it looks like the only thing that makes you think Apple can't do that is because they pinky promised this to you. Sorry.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Opt-in OTR encryption. Kind of a big difference.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
When you control your own server you kinda don't really need end to end encryption. It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages. It also degrades UX considerably: if the server does not know the contents of your message, it can't do server side archive search, you can't sync devices easily, etc.
- filoleg 6y ago
  >It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages Trust in entities is fleeting. You trust an entity today, you might not trust it tomorrow. End-to-end encryption, in contrast, is not fleeting, as long as you trust math.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    I was actually talking about running your own server. If someone is _really_ caring about his privacy, he can allow himself to spend $2/month on it. And if someone's trust for his own service is fleeting... uh-oh.
    - jychang 6y ago
      > And if someone's trust for his own service is fleeting... uh-oh. I definitely won't trust my own code to keep me alive, if that's what's preventing a government from killing me or something. There's a very good chance my homemade server config or encryption code has a big side channel vulnerability or something.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        XMPP servers are really good these days, you know. And, I repeat, if you run your own server, you don't really need e2ee, cause the only one who can access the DB with your messages is a server operator - yourself, i this case, and why would you protect you from yourself? Also, if you are concerned about privacy, chances are, you are not a private individual and have specially trained people to install that server for you. Then again, even if you DO need encryption to transmit a critical password or something, well, XMPP clients developers know their business (at least, some of them do), so it is unlikely that you'd be able to screw up something.
        monadic2 6y ago
        > And, I repeat, if you run your own server, you don't really need e2ee, cause the only one who can access the DB with your messages is a server operator - yourself, i this case, and why would you protect you from yourself? The typical idea is being concerned that a state will physically seize your server—you know, real security and privacy concerns. > Also, if you are concerned about privacy, chances are, you are not a private individual and have specially trained people to install that server for you. Is this not ultimtely what iMessages is to people?
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        But the commenter above claimed that trust in entities is fleeting? And we have proven that Apple can read your messages if they really want to. [1] Also, if you are concerned that state will seize your server physically - then you should probably put the server to a place where it can't. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058454
        monadic2 6y ago
        Sure, trust in entities is fleeting, but they aren’t giving at better way to trust (as you are are not). I’m not sure what the point of pretending to be ignorant about encryption is supposed to do.
- mynameisvlad 6y ago
  > It only enhances security when you don't trust the entity delivering your messages Which is kind of the point of all these services. > you can't sync devices easily Apple seems to handle this pretty easily with great UX. I switched to a S20 this year. iMessage is one of the only things that I truly miss about my old iPhone.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > Apple seems to handle this pretty easily with great UX. Sigh. This again. Ok. If have end-to-end encryption, you can't read messages on newly connected devices, unless you somehow pass encryption keys to your new device. If you do not pass keys between devices, and can still read messages sent from other devices, you do not have end-to-end encryption. If the only thing you put into device when connecting is your login/password, then even if Apple does retrieve keys from your device and passes it to new device, it can pass it to themselves and gain access to your super confidential messages. So, no, Apple does not handle this pretty easily. Source: our product has _real_ end-to-end encryption, and it gives the users a rather big amount of discomfort. If you are told you have really secure messenger, but you do not enter anything but your login/password, well, I've got bad news for you. > Which is kind of the point of all these services. If your point is privacy, and you really care about it, just run your own communication server for $2/month. You have all the niceties of server side search and device sync, and none of the pain in the ass that is brought by E2EE. And if your privacy isn't worth $2/month, then you probably don't need E2EE either.
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      According to docs and endless reporting on iMessage, the messages are end-to-end encrypted in transit. In addition to that, they are stored (optional) in your iCloud account, using a separate key, itself stored in iCloud Keychain (protected by 2FA), and this is how you recover them on a separate device. If you opt-out from iCloud backup the messages are not recoverable, can also set them to be erased after 30 days. > it can pass it to themselves and gain access to your super confidential messages They can also send your PIN, private keys, all logins and passwords to their own servers, or simply log chats from the system keyboard and UI or any of the OS layers they control. The same is true for any app running on iOS/Android. If you don't trust the OS there is no working around it in software.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sascha_sl 6y ago

Do note "readily available to consumers". XMPP never reached a level of polish outside being embedded in part-proprietary solutions that it'd be available to your average user, not to even talk about OTR.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Gtalk was polished enough. It didn't have OTR built in, but majority of users don't really need end to end encryption anyway, it only makes their life not good. Also, iMessage never reached a level of polish to work on anything not produced by Apple. If we're taking proprietary vendor specific secure services, Blackberry did it before Apple, too. So, definitely not the first and not the only.
- derefr 6y ago
  E2E encryption is mostly for people whose lives are already not good. It only works to help those people, though, if enough “civilian” traffic is also using it that any ISP blocking it would be considered to be breaking the Internet. BBM was not E2E encrypted. BlackBerry always retained the capability to read your message traffic. Apple does not.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > Apple does not. Well, I'm not _that_ familiar with BBM since it was never available in my country. But what makes you think Apple can't read your messages? Do you have any encryption keys that you share between devices? Or you just enter login/password on a new device and voilà all your messages are displayed to you? If that is so, I guess I'll have to tell you something... Anyway. Last time I checked, iMessage apps source code was not available, you can't verify fingerprints of your contacts in iMessage, so... how do you know Apple doesn't insert a very simple MitM agent that does e2ee both for your and your chat partner, having all messages nicely decrypted in the middle? So far it looks like the only thing that makes you think Apple can't do that is because they pinky promised this to you. Sorry.