3 ms·
> I'm very unlikely to recommend it to anyone over alternatives that default to end to end encryption, or even require it. Which are they? Alternatives that re
by ezst 5y ago
> I'm very unlikely to recommend it to anyone over alternatives that default to end to end encryption, or even require it.
Which are they? Alternatives that require you to reveal your identity (via a phone number), or to reveal your whole social graph/usage patterns (by being organized around a single actor in the middle knowing about everything and everyone in the network)?
Federated and P2P networks are the only true alternatives for the privacy/security conscious.
> On XMPP, encryption is optional and not even the default.
OMEMO encryption is widespread/practically universal these days. You are pretty much guaranteed to be able to establish an E2EE session would it not be the default for any reason.
- snvzz 5y ago>Alternatives that require you to reveal your identity (via a phone number), or to reveal your whole social graph/usage patterns (by being organized around a single actor in the middle knowing about everything and everyone in the network)? No. Matrix and Tox come to mind.
- ezst 5y agoAgreed about Matrix and Tox qualifying (not being centralized). I can't vouch for Tox from a security standpoint (haven't looked at the details), but I can guarantee that it's not ready for widespread use (esp. on mobile where P2P messaging still needs a breakthrough). Matrix is fine. In my biased opinion, it's just XMPP with more steps, more overhead and a less diverse ecosystem. Also, its security story is no better than XMPP so it's funny that we came to that from "XMPP, encryption is optional and not even the default", where that's practically truer for Matrix than it is for XMPP.