3 ms·

I'll bite: we first created Matrix in 2014; we started implementing E2EE in 2016 and we turned it on by default in 2020. The reason it took so long was because

I'll bite: we first created Matrix in 2014; we started implementing E2EE in 2016 and we turned it on by default in 2020. The reason it took so long was because we focused first on getting decentralisation (not federation) correct, and then the protocol started to get prematurely successful and we got sucked into ensuring the implementations (and spec) scaled and the governance was correct... even before E2EE was stable enough to be on by default. You're completely right that we have different goals to Signal (openness + freedom rather than privacy-at-all-costs), but I'm not sure that blaming federation is the right answer here. We just prioritised building an open standard over having E2EE from day 1, instead choosing to design things so we could add it later.

tptacek 5y ago
As I recall, you had false starts getting E2E enabled by default (6 years after the project started)... because popular client software didn't have it working. That's not a problem Signal has or ever will have: when they want to roll out new privacy features (like they just did days ago!), they roll the clients. Again: I'm not dunking on Matrix. There are things the Matrix approach will do better than Signal can. But protecting individuals is probably never going to be one of them; you're competing with a project that has security and privacy as its overriding goal, and nobody at Signal ever has to ask whether federation --- a protocol complexifier if ever there was one --- merits a security hit. I don't use Signal for everything (or even most things). I'm completely open to the argument that other messengers are better "overall" than Signal. But on a thread that asks the question of whether Matrix is as secure as Signal (not "secure enough", but rather "at parity with"), there is simply a clear answer.
- Arathorn 5y ago
  I don’t think we had any false starts on e2ee by default? We wrote pantalaimon as a local shim to let any unencrypted matrix client do e2ee, and then (eventually) flipped the switch. The thing that stopped us doing so earlier is that we wanted to have optional online keybackup and cross signing and better key verification UX before we forced everyone into it.

tptacek 5y ago

As I recall, you had false starts getting E2E enabled by default (6 years after the project started)... because popular client software didn't have it working. That's not a problem Signal has or ever will have: when they want to roll out new privacy features (like they just did days ago!), they roll the clients. Again: I'm not dunking on Matrix. There are things the Matrix approach will do better than Signal can. But protecting individuals is probably never going to be one of them; you're competing with a project that has security and privacy as its overriding goal, and nobody at Signal ever has to ask whether federation --- a protocol complexifier if ever there was one --- merits a security hit. I don't use Signal for everything (or even most things). I'm completely open to the argument that other messengers are better "overall" than Signal. But on a thread that asks the question of whether Matrix is as secure as Signal (not "secure enough", but rather "at parity with"), there is simply a clear answer.

Arathorn 5y ago
I don’t think we had any false starts on e2ee by default? We wrote pantalaimon as a local shim to let any unencrypted matrix client do e2ee, and then (eventually) flipped the switch. The thing that stopped us doing so earlier is that we wanted to have optional online keybackup and cross signing and better key verification UX before we forced everyone into it.