5 ms·
The norm for personal communications really ought to shift to a new protocol that doesn't expose phone numbers. It would be nice if I had a list of people who
by fareesh 4y ago
The norm for personal communications really ought to shift to a new protocol that doesn't expose phone numbers.
It would be nice if I had a list of people who have my contact added and just remove their ability to do so without my consent.
It would solve security, privacy, telemarketing, all sorts of nuisances.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoHm. I could write it down.
- ddihfygdgf 4y agosignal does what you say and keep the convience of connecting people via phone numbers, if you optin. but they still have a closed server... so who knows what really is logged where. still infinitely better than whatsbook/telegram/appleID/google/microsoft alternatives
- worldsavior 4y agoA closed/open source server doesn't matter since you can't actually confirm if the open source version is actually running.
- kibwen 4y agoIf it's open source and has a reproducible build, then you can audit the codebase, compute the hash, then verify an attestation from the secure enclave that the code is running in.
- worldsavior 4y agoSo you need to trust the server to return a valid, unmodified hash?
- kibwen 4y agoIn the case of the above, you're not trusting the server, you're only trusting the CPU manufacturer. Attestation happens within the secure enclave inside the CPU, at which point having physical access to the machine doesn't (well, shouldn't, if it's correctly implemented) give you any insight into what code it's running or what data it's operating upon.
- worldsavior 4y agoHow can you know which CPU is running? Also, the software could easily change the output of the security chip (secure enclave is only on apple devices).
- kibwen 4y agoPart of the attestation process involves receiving a cryptographic signature from the CPU vendor. They can only fake it if they break the cryptography. And enclaves (or "trusted execution environments") aren't only on Apple chips, AMD and Intel have their own implementations.
- worldsavior 4y agoBut the CPU is first sending the signature to the OS, thuse enabling the OS to send you something else.
- namkt 4y agoSignal uses (or used?) SGX for remote attestation, which presumably lets the client verify that the code running on the server is a build of the OSS code and not a modified version. But I don't know the details or if this is reliable. SGX and remote attestation described here: https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/ https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/ https://signal.org/blog/secure-value-recovery/
- kibwen 4y agoIt should be possible to independently verify Signal's attestation, but I don't know if anyone has done it. Before you go and say "what's even the point then", the point is that this gives Signal plausible deniability for when the TLAs show up asking for user info.
- viccuad 4y agoI wonder, how could one use SGX for remote attestation when they didn't publish the source code for more than a year just to get their insiders' knowledge cryptocoin deployed.
- screamingninja 4y agoSomething like Matrix? https://matrix.org/ https://matrix.org/
- solarkraft 4y agoYeah, but with a conveniently usable implementation.
- Arathorn 4y agoElement X is gearing up to be that, fwiw
- khobragade 4y agoAre there more details about this? I did look up but didn't find any.
- screamingninja 4y agohttps://element.io/get-started https://element.io/get-started