5 ms·

> Are you working out the details on recovery and storage, handling lost devices, configuring a communication channel for sharing certs/keys, managing several

by krn 4y ago

> Are you working out the details on recovery and storage, handling lost devices, configuring a communication channel for sharing certs/keys, managing several crypto dependencies and libraries - all so that you can go "Hey - what's up!" in a notification to your phone? In 2022, there is no need to invent anything new about E2E encryption. There are many successful open-source examples, including Keybase and Firefox Sync. There is no question that it adds development overhead, but I personally wouldn't even run a public service for others without E2E encryption. > Or should you just stop whining - accept that this is free - and take the authors advice and host it yourself? I am not attacking the author, nor do I currently care about this particular service he is providing. This is Hacker News, a discussion platform, and I am raising a question about software development in general.

seqastian 4y ago
> I personally wouldn't even run a public service for others without E2E encryption. So don't? seems like everyone got what they wanted.
- krn 4y ago
  Well, thinking logically: if everyone really got what they wanted, that question wouldn't be in the FAQ, would it?
  - phaer 4y ago
    Especially with things like notifications, even e2e encryption can't generally provide complete privacy because metadata is data too ;)
    - krn 4y ago
      Signal does it just fine.
    - pastage 4y ago
      You solve that by forwarding/decrypting/adding noise between servers, enough to cover metadata traffic you generate. The only data you reveal is anyone listening know you might have used it at some point. See https://vuvuzela.io/ https://vuvuzela.io/ I suspect it is named so because it uses a lot of bandwidth.
      - phaer 4y ago
        It's of course possible to mitigate, but that's somewhat more involved than "just" sprinkling e2e encryption on top ;)
horsawlarway 4y ago
>This is Hacker News, a discussion platform, and I am raising a question about software development in general. No - no you aren't. You're complaining about a feature in a product you've admitted you won't use. Which... is fine. At the end of the day - the feedback might be helpful or it might not, part of the journey of publishing software (or making anything, really) is figuring out what advice to listen to, and what to ignore. But personally - I don't really find your point sensible. You have no use-case, you have no threat model, you have a very unclear understanding of what E2E encryption entails, in my opinion - since you point to apps whose entire marketing shtick is that they have E2E encryption and say "if they are doing it, it must be easy" - Ignoring that they are literally using the difficulty of doing it as the distinguishing factor for their product. But hey - I worked for a security company that did E2E encryption for fortune 100 companies, mostly banks, for 5 years (and eventually went out of business... as an aside) so what do I know...
- krn 4y ago
  > But personally - I don't really find your point sensible. You have no use-case, you have no threat model [...] My point is very clear and simple: all private communication on the internet should be E2E encrypted by default, unless there is a good reason not to. > [...] say "if they are doing it, it must be easy" - Ignoring that they are literally using the difficulty of doing it as the distinguishing factor for their product. I am not claiming that it's easy, but there has been plenty of open-source projects launched with E2E encryption by default in the past few years. https://standardnotes.com/ https://standardnotes.com/ is a good example. https://stingle.org/ https://stingle.org/ is another. https://ente.io/ https://ente.io/ is one more.
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    > My point is very clear and simple: all private communication on the internet should be E2E encrypted by default, unless there is a good reason not to. Are you counting HTTPS as “E2E encrypted”? Because if not, consider that we do private communication over mere HTTPS all day long. Me loading the HN web page and having my own personal rendering of it with my user cookie header and all my upvote/downvote/karma/profile state is private communication, for example.

by krn 4y ago

seqastian 4y ago

> I personally wouldn't even run a public service for others without E2E encryption. So don't? seems like everyone got what they wanted.

krn 4y ago
Well, thinking logically: if everyone really got what they wanted, that question wouldn't be in the FAQ, would it?
- phaer 4y ago
  Especially with things like notifications, even e2e encryption can't generally provide complete privacy because metadata is data too ;)
  - krn 4y ago
    Signal does it just fine.
  - pastage 4y ago
    You solve that by forwarding/decrypting/adding noise between servers, enough to cover metadata traffic you generate. The only data you reveal is anyone listening know you might have used it at some point. See https://vuvuzela.io/ https://vuvuzela.io/ I suspect it is named so because it uses a lot of bandwidth.
    - phaer 4y ago
      It's of course possible to mitigate, but that's somewhat more involved than "just" sprinkling e2e encryption on top ;)

horsawlarway 4y ago

>This is Hacker News, a discussion platform, and I am raising a question about software development in general. No - no you aren't. You're complaining about a feature in a product you've admitted you won't use. Which... is fine. At the end of the day - the feedback might be helpful or it might not, part of the journey of publishing software (or making anything, really) is figuring out what advice to listen to, and what to ignore. But personally - I don't really find your point sensible. You have no use-case, you have no threat model, you have a very unclear understanding of what E2E encryption entails, in my opinion - since you point to apps whose entire marketing shtick is that they have E2E encryption and say "if they are doing it, it must be easy" - Ignoring that they are literally using the difficulty of doing it as the distinguishing factor for their product. But hey - I worked for a security company that did E2E encryption for fortune 100 companies, mostly banks, for 5 years (and eventually went out of business... as an aside) so what do I know...

krn 4y ago
> But personally - I don't really find your point sensible. You have no use-case, you have no threat model [...] My point is very clear and simple: all private communication on the internet should be E2E encrypted by default, unless there is a good reason not to. > [...] say "if they are doing it, it must be easy" - Ignoring that they are literally using the difficulty of doing it as the distinguishing factor for their product. I am not claiming that it's easy, but there has been plenty of open-source projects launched with E2E encryption by default in the past few years. https://standardnotes.com/ https://standardnotes.com/ is a good example. https://stingle.org/ https://stingle.org/ is another. https://ente.io/ https://ente.io/ is one more.
- hamburglar 4y ago
  > My point is very clear and simple: all private communication on the internet should be E2E encrypted by default, unless there is a good reason not to. Are you counting HTTPS as “E2E encrypted”? Because if not, consider that we do private communication over mere HTTPS all day long. Me loading the HN web page and having my own personal rendering of it with my user cookie header and all my upvote/downvote/karma/profile state is private communication, for example.