4 ms·

I agree that mandatory encryption would massively help privacy, integrity and even compliance [1]. However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keepin

I agree that mandatory encryption would massively help privacy, integrity and even compliance [1]. However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keeping track of keys and implementing encryption. As a small project, ease of adoption has been our most important goal. However, as we work towards better WebPush compatibility [2], I personally absolutely want to promote RFC8291 encryption and make it easy to implement for developers using UnifiedPush, hopefully making it the norm. [1] https://volkerkrause.eu/2022/11/12/kde-unifiedpush-push-notifications.html https://volkerkrause.eu/2022/11/12/kde-unifiedpush-push-noti... [2] https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/15 https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/15

nightpool 4y ago
Making it the "norm" isn't good enough, because developers will always want to cut corners to ship, either based on pressure from management or (in open source projects) just not feeling comfortable with encryption or thinking that it's important enough to implement. Web push libraries are already widely available for major languages to handle implementing encryption, and keeping track of keys isn't any harder than keeping track of device IDs or endpoints would be without encryption—it's just one more row in your database.
ohbtvz 4y ago
> However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keeping track of keys and implementing encryption. As soon as you need encryption in at least one place in your software, it's going to happen.
kevincox 4y ago
WebPush doesn't really have keys to keep track of. Other than the VAPID signature (which is optional but may be enforced by the push service) all of the keys are ephemeral. They are used for just one subscription so storing them is just as easy as storing the rest of the notification URL.

4 ms·

I agree that mandatory encryption would massively help privacy, integrity and even compliance [1]. However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keepin

by karmanyaahm 4y ago

nightpool 4y ago
Making it the "norm" isn't good enough, because developers will always want to cut corners to ship, either based on pressure from management or (in open source projects) just not feeling comfortable with encryption or thinking that it's important enough to implement. Web push libraries are already widely available for major languages to handle implementing encryption, and keeping track of keys isn't any harder than keeping track of device IDs or endpoints would be without encryption—it's just one more row in your database.
ohbtvz 4y ago
> However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keeping track of keys and implementing encryption. As soon as you need encryption in at least one place in your software, it's going to happen.
kevincox 4y ago
WebPush doesn't really have keys to keep track of. Other than the VAPID signature (which is optional but may be enforced by the push service) all of the keys are ephemeral. They are used for just one subscription so storing them is just as easy as storing the rest of the notification URL.