6 ms·

Thanks for the kind words re the analytics! You are right re privacy. It is possible to go from url hash -> parse -> server (that’s not what SDocs does to be c

Thanks for the kind words re the analytics! You are right re privacy. It is possible to go from url hash -> parse -> server (that’s not what SDocs does to be clear). I’ve been thinking about how to prove our privacy mechanism. The idea I have in my head at the moment is to have 2+ established coding agents review the code after every merge to the codebase and to provide a signal (maybe visible in the footer) that, according to them it is secure and the check was made after the latest merge. Maybe overkill?! Or maybe a new way to “prove” things?? If you have other ideas please let me know.

big_toast 6mo ago
No, I don't have any good ideas. Just hoping someone else does, or that I'm missing something. I think it's in the hands of browser vendors. The agent review a la socket.dev probably doesn't address all the gaps. I think you're already doing about as much as you reasonably can.
- FailMore 6mo ago
  Thanks. The question has made me wonder about the value of some sort of real time verification service.
  - Nevermark 6mo ago
    If it's possible to isolate that part of the code, and essentially freeze it for long periods. At least people would know it wasn't being tweaked under them all the time. That is my half of a bad idea.
    - FailMore 6mo ago
      I have something coming out soon (just working on it). Your client (browser) has hashing algos built into it. So the browser can run a hash of all the front end assets it serves. Every commit merged into main will cause a hash of all the public files to be generated. We will allow you to compare the hashes of the front end files in your browser with the hashes from the public GH project. Interested to know what you think...
      - Nevermark 6mo ago
        That sounds like a good idea. Any step toward transparent security is a good one.
adelks 6mo ago
How about simply making the website an app and have it load your makedown file with a button and file browser. Just like e.g. https://app.diagrams.net/ https://app.diagrams.net/ And I believe you can then tell the browser that you need no network communication at that point. And a user can double check that.

big_toast 6mo ago

No, I don't have any good ideas. Just hoping someone else does, or that I'm missing something. I think it's in the hands of browser vendors. The agent review a la socket.dev probably doesn't address all the gaps. I think you're already doing about as much as you reasonably can.

FailMore 6mo ago
Thanks. The question has made me wonder about the value of some sort of real time verification service.
- Nevermark 6mo ago
  If it's possible to isolate that part of the code, and essentially freeze it for long periods. At least people would know it wasn't being tweaked under them all the time. That is my half of a bad idea.
  - FailMore 6mo ago
    I have something coming out soon (just working on it). Your client (browser) has hashing algos built into it. So the browser can run a hash of all the front end assets it serves. Every commit merged into main will cause a hash of all the public files to be generated. We will allow you to compare the hashes of the front end files in your browser with the hashes from the public GH project. Interested to know what you think...
    - Nevermark 6mo ago
      That sounds like a good idea. Any step toward transparent security is a good one.

adelks 6mo ago

How about simply making the website an app and have it load your makedown file with a button and file browser. Just like e.g. https://app.diagrams.net/ https://app.diagrams.net/ And I believe you can then tell the browser that you need no network communication at that point. And a user can double check that.