7 ms·

All of our bridges (except Slack and Discord, but will soon) use Matrix's e2e encryption scheme and all messages are stored encrypted on Beeper servers with a k

All of our bridges (except Slack and Discord, but will soon) use Matrix's e2e encryption scheme and all messages are stored encrypted on Beeper servers with a key that you control. We can't decrypt your messages.

m0hit 6y ago
Thanks! This is the only piece of information I needed before giving Beeper a chance. I could not find it on the Beeper home page as a callout or in the FAQs, and it would probably be good to add. Ideally I would not want to run the whole stack if I understand how the E2E encryption is managed.
TheCraiggers 6y ago
Wait, how is this possible? There's an obvious integration point between your bridge server and the other service. They don't talk the same encrypted protocol, obviously, so you have to send plain text at some point in that process. It makes zero sense that you don't have access to the messages.
- bertman 6y ago
  Yes, I was wondering about exactly this! A dev response would be much appreciated.
- rkangel 6y ago
  They don't talk the same protocol but that doesn't prevent them using compatible forms of message encryption. If the basic concepts of "E2E key exchange" and "pass this encrypted message" exist at all points, I see no fundamental problems with having E2E encryption across different networks. I can see potential for lots of the normal practical small problems but it could fundamentally work.
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    I agree that it's technically feasible but that's not going to help me right now. It would require all services use the same encryption (or at least understand a common, compatible one) and I don't see that happening, ever.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
_-___________-_ 6y ago
This simply cannot be true, since you have to decrypt the messages to send them to, for example, WhatsApp.
- rkangel 6y ago
  Nope - you have to encrypt them to send them to WhatsApp. Why could you not encrypt them in the client and then send that encrypted message over the bridge, preserving E2E?
  - TheCraiggers 6y ago
    Because that's not how this works. The bridge has to have the unencrypted text, because it's the bridge that is communicating with WhatsApp/Signal/IRC/whatever. The client isn't the bridge, it's not communicating directly with WhatsApp, it's just communicating with a Matrix Bridge (over an encrypted channel) to a Synapse server you don't control.
  - _-___________-_ 6y ago
    You'd need WhatsApp's collaboration for this, which I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the bridge operator doesn't have. There are two encrypted channels: client<->bridge, and bridge<->WhatsApp. The bridge can read the decrypted text, and the comment I replied to is a lie.
pbronez 6y ago
Seems like you have to unwrap the message from the upstream scheme and re-wrap it in Matrix’s scheme at some point, right? I’d appreciate a blog post explaining the architectural choices here.

m0hit 6y ago

Thanks! This is the only piece of information I needed before giving Beeper a chance. I could not find it on the Beeper home page as a callout or in the FAQs, and it would probably be good to add. Ideally I would not want to run the whole stack if I understand how the E2E encryption is managed.

TheCraiggers 6y ago

Wait, how is this possible? There's an obvious integration point between your bridge server and the other service. They don't talk the same encrypted protocol, obviously, so you have to send plain text at some point in that process. It makes zero sense that you don't have access to the messages.

bertman 6y ago
Yes, I was wondering about exactly this! A dev response would be much appreciated.
rkangel 6y ago
They don't talk the same protocol but that doesn't prevent them using compatible forms of message encryption. If the basic concepts of "E2E key exchange" and "pass this encrypted message" exist at all points, I see no fundamental problems with having E2E encryption across different networks. I can see potential for lots of the normal practical small problems but it could fundamentally work.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  I agree that it's technically feasible but that's not going to help me right now. It would require all services use the same encryption (or at least understand a common, compatible one) and I don't see that happening, ever.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

_-___________-_ 6y ago

This simply cannot be true, since you have to decrypt the messages to send them to, for example, WhatsApp.

rkangel 6y ago
Nope - you have to encrypt them to send them to WhatsApp. Why could you not encrypt them in the client and then send that encrypted message over the bridge, preserving E2E?
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  Because that's not how this works. The bridge has to have the unencrypted text, because it's the bridge that is communicating with WhatsApp/Signal/IRC/whatever. The client isn't the bridge, it's not communicating directly with WhatsApp, it's just communicating with a Matrix Bridge (over an encrypted channel) to a Synapse server you don't control.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  You'd need WhatsApp's collaboration for this, which I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the bridge operator doesn't have. There are two encrypted channels: client<->bridge, and bridge<->WhatsApp. The bridge can read the decrypted text, and the comment I replied to is a lie.

pbronez 6y ago

Seems like you have to unwrap the message from the upstream scheme and re-wrap it in Matrix’s scheme at some point, right? I’d appreciate a blog post explaining the architectural choices here.