3 ms·
Sealed sender doesn't really solve the metadata problem at all: * https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/ndss2021_1C-4_24180_paper.pdf https://www.n
by upofadown 2y ago
Sealed sender doesn't really solve the metadata problem at all:
* https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/ndss2021_1C-4_24180_paper.pdf https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/ndss2021_1...
Generally you need something like TOR to hide who is talking to who.
- codethief 2y agoInteresting, I feared Sealed Sender might be susceptible to statistical analysis (hence my phrasing "reduce it a bit") but it's worse than I expected ("Signal could link sealed sender users in as few as 5 message"). Thanks for the link! As for TOR, that wouldn't really help much, would it, given that the described attack is at the application level of Signal. Or are you talking about not using Signal altogether?
- upofadown 2y agoYeah, I used TOR as a general example. Briar uses TOR for example to hide the connections between users.
- maqp 2y agoSome other options https://cwtch.im/ https://cwtch.im/ (has better UX and security than Briar) https://onionshare.org/ https://onionshare.org/ chat feature Also https://github.com/maqp/tfc https://github.com/maqp/tfc by yours truly if you need hardware-enforced endpoint security for your keys.
- foresto 2y agoRelated presentation from Network and Distributed System Security Symposium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoN6FLC5Hss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoN6FLC5Hss
- codethief 2y agoThanks, that was a very nice & accessible talk!