4 ms·

Ultra paranoid group already despises Signal because of it's strict phone number requirement and moxie's stubborn and unreasonable stance on refusing anyone to

by udev4096 10mo ago

Ultra paranoid group already despises Signal because of it's strict phone number requirement and moxie's stubborn and unreasonable stance on refusing anyone to self-host. Matrix is far better than Signal

pcthrowaway 10mo ago
I think Moxie's issue is with using their server for custom clients, but I'm curious if you have a link to him stating opposition to self-hosting?
- writebetterc 10mo ago
  Moxie doesn't want to federate, that's the main issue I believe.
- udev4096 10mo ago
  Moxie thinks everyone in the world is a fucking normie and people shouldn't be running servers because he hates freedom and loves centralizing everything. It's rare when such a genius cryptographer has hatred towards decentralization
  - sliken 10mo ago
    Wow, that's a pretty negative take. Signals mission seems to be something along the lines of helping the most people increase their privacy. Better to help millions resist the dragnet of surveillance by ISPs, governments, and large organizations then to have perfect security for a few. This requires a very easy to use client (i.e. click on signal in the app store and launch), features users want (send receipts, typing notifications, emoji, video, calls, etc), and making wrong choices hard. Like say installing a random compatible with signal client from an untrustworthy source. So Moxie is fine with people forking the open source client, but wants them to use their own servers. Distributed/decentralization isn't some magic pixy dust that makes everything better. So sure federation can work, but it's harder, and you run into things like XMPP. Are there secure XMPP servers out there, sure, but how do you tell? Which XMPP server supports which extension? How many people use XMPP for their chat/calls on a daily basis? Seems kind of weird to pick on signal for doing things well and getting popular. Could it be more secure/private, sure. Could it do so AND be more popular, not so sure.
    - udev4096 10mo ago
      > dragnet of surveillance by ISPs Yet relying on them for even signing up. How ironic. Signal is good for normies seeking privacy but it's so bad if you look past that
      - sliken 10mo ago
        Signal seems pretty good, not sure it could be better and have evolved so quickly and gained so many users. Sure it could be more resistant to traffic analysis. What do you use? I've pondered writing a p2p client that uses the signal encryption (double ratchet) and bounces fixed size packets off 2-3 other clients before delivery. All packets would be the same size, including those for the upkeep of the DHT. To help make traffic analysis more difficult forwarding would include a random delay, DHT traffic would be indistinguishable from message traffic, and chaff would be added to allow for plausible deniability. Your client would talk to at least 3x as many other peers with similar timings and frequencies. However the inherent compromises of P2P like increased CPU, network, and battery usage combined with higher latency and startup time seems like the adoption would be lucky to hit 0.1% of signal and then it's less useful since using it would raise flags. Signal is so valuable because it has good e2e, it's popular, and whoever you want to talk to is likely to have at least heard of signal if not already running it.
jeroenhd 10mo ago
If you're looking to protect yourself from metadata analysis, Matrix is not the protocol for you. Matrix and XMPP are excellent protocols for decentralisation, but their E2EE implementation leaves all kinds of metadata exposed outside of the E2EE envelope. You need to trust the server to not expose any of this information to anyone else (which is difficult to do when the police comes in with a warrant). If you use your own Matrix server(s) this isn't a direct problem, but then the communication links between you and the people you talk to would stand out immediately, so protection fails in other ways. I'm not saying you should drop Matrix or anything, its decentralized nature and clear finances do have some trust advantages over Signal's occasional behaviour, but on a protocol level, an ultra paranoid person would probably be better off using (an audited client for) Signal.
- udev4096 10mo ago
  What metadata exactly? Matrix only publishes the absolute required metadata for functioning of federation. Unless you can pin point exactly what metadata and how harmful that is, stop throwing that word around. Whoever is pushing this narrative of "metadata leak" in matrix needs to come up with actual facts
  - Arathorn 10mo ago
    Speaking as project lead for Matrix, the protocol does currently expose more metadata to the server than it should. Specifically, the main issues are: * no sealed-sender (but see the OP on why this is not a panacea) * server can see which users are in which rooms * plaintext room names & topics (so serverside search can work) * aggregations (metadata around reactions, edits, replies, threads - ie who reacted to what and with what emoji) We’ve been working away improving this - for instance MSC3414 defines a way to encrypt key/value events like the above, and an implementation landed this summer. Similarly per-room user ids are planned too. However, it’s not trivial to get right, and we are underresourced so the work is going slower than we’d like. Also, decentralisation at least means the metadata doesn’t pool in some centralised place (as signal’s traffic footprint does, for instance). If you run your own server, then the threat may be acceptable.
  - 10mo ago
longitudinal93 10mo ago
Unfortunately Matrix hasn't yet implemented any PQ encryption so you are subject to store and harvest attacks.

pcthrowaway 10mo ago

I think Moxie's issue is with using their server for custom clients, but I'm curious if you have a link to him stating opposition to self-hosting?

writebetterc 10mo ago
Moxie doesn't want to federate, that's the main issue I believe.
udev4096 10mo ago
Moxie thinks everyone in the world is a fucking normie and people shouldn't be running servers because he hates freedom and loves centralizing everything. It's rare when such a genius cryptographer has hatred towards decentralization
- sliken 10mo ago
  Wow, that's a pretty negative take. Signals mission seems to be something along the lines of helping the most people increase their privacy. Better to help millions resist the dragnet of surveillance by ISPs, governments, and large organizations then to have perfect security for a few. This requires a very easy to use client (i.e. click on signal in the app store and launch), features users want (send receipts, typing notifications, emoji, video, calls, etc), and making wrong choices hard. Like say installing a random compatible with signal client from an untrustworthy source. So Moxie is fine with people forking the open source client, but wants them to use their own servers. Distributed/decentralization isn't some magic pixy dust that makes everything better. So sure federation can work, but it's harder, and you run into things like XMPP. Are there secure XMPP servers out there, sure, but how do you tell? Which XMPP server supports which extension? How many people use XMPP for their chat/calls on a daily basis? Seems kind of weird to pick on signal for doing things well and getting popular. Could it be more secure/private, sure. Could it do so AND be more popular, not so sure.
  - udev4096 10mo ago
    > dragnet of surveillance by ISPs Yet relying on them for even signing up. How ironic. Signal is good for normies seeking privacy but it's so bad if you look past that
    - sliken 10mo ago
      Signal seems pretty good, not sure it could be better and have evolved so quickly and gained so many users. Sure it could be more resistant to traffic analysis. What do you use? I've pondered writing a p2p client that uses the signal encryption (double ratchet) and bounces fixed size packets off 2-3 other clients before delivery. All packets would be the same size, including those for the upkeep of the DHT. To help make traffic analysis more difficult forwarding would include a random delay, DHT traffic would be indistinguishable from message traffic, and chaff would be added to allow for plausible deniability. Your client would talk to at least 3x as many other peers with similar timings and frequencies. However the inherent compromises of P2P like increased CPU, network, and battery usage combined with higher latency and startup time seems like the adoption would be lucky to hit 0.1% of signal and then it's less useful since using it would raise flags. Signal is so valuable because it has good e2e, it's popular, and whoever you want to talk to is likely to have at least heard of signal if not already running it.

jeroenhd 10mo ago

If you're looking to protect yourself from metadata analysis, Matrix is not the protocol for you. Matrix and XMPP are excellent protocols for decentralisation, but their E2EE implementation leaves all kinds of metadata exposed outside of the E2EE envelope. You need to trust the server to not expose any of this information to anyone else (which is difficult to do when the police comes in with a warrant). If you use your own Matrix server(s) this isn't a direct problem, but then the communication links between you and the people you talk to would stand out immediately, so protection fails in other ways. I'm not saying you should drop Matrix or anything, its decentralized nature and clear finances do have some trust advantages over Signal's occasional behaviour, but on a protocol level, an ultra paranoid person would probably be better off using (an audited client for) Signal.

udev4096 10mo ago
What metadata exactly? Matrix only publishes the absolute required metadata for functioning of federation. Unless you can pin point exactly what metadata and how harmful that is, stop throwing that word around. Whoever is pushing this narrative of "metadata leak" in matrix needs to come up with actual facts
- Arathorn 10mo ago
  Speaking as project lead for Matrix, the protocol does currently expose more metadata to the server than it should. Specifically, the main issues are: * no sealed-sender (but see the OP on why this is not a panacea) * server can see which users are in which rooms * plaintext room names & topics (so serverside search can work) * aggregations (metadata around reactions, edits, replies, threads - ie who reacted to what and with what emoji) We’ve been working away improving this - for instance MSC3414 defines a way to encrypt key/value events like the above, and an implementation landed this summer. Similarly per-room user ids are planned too. However, it’s not trivial to get right, and we are underresourced so the work is going slower than we’d like. Also, decentralisation at least means the metadata doesn’t pool in some centralised place (as signal’s traffic footprint does, for instance). If you run your own server, then the threat may be acceptable.
- 10mo ago

longitudinal93 10mo ago

Unfortunately Matrix hasn't yet implemented any PQ encryption so you are subject to store and harvest attacks.