4 ms·
Not to be nit-picky, but E2EE is not zero-knowledge. It's entirely possible for the data to be E2EE while the provider has all knowledge, partial knowledge or a
by deafpolygon 3y ago
Not to be nit-picky, but E2EE is not zero-knowledge. It's entirely possible for the data to be E2EE while the provider has all knowledge, partial knowledge or a little bit of knowledge of what you are transferring.
I have seen services market E2EE while not being truly zero knowledge, so it's important to watch out for that sneaky marketing lingo.
- remram 3y agoIf the provider has all knowledge, I don't think it deserves to be called E2EE at all. E2EE implies (to me) that decryption doesn't happen until your message has reached the other end. Any decryption on the server/relay/middleman, even if re-encrypting, is not what I call E2EE.
- deafpolygon 3y agoI agree with you in principle, but being "E2EE" is just simply that - it's end-to-end encrypted. It says nothing as to who holds the encryption keys, and often times the host holds the key. Zero knowledge implies that the host has no knowledge (thus no keys) of your data.
- remram 3y agoI'm not even talking about who has the keys, or whether the server can decrypt. I'm saying that if the server is decrypting and then re-encrypting, it is not "end-to-end".