maqp

8 ms·

61.
by maqp 9mo ago
The unfortunate problem with Pidgin is you don't have proper cross-platform E2EE chats, especially for groups. OTR is terribly outdated with its 1536-bit FFDH. These days the security margin sits at 2048-bit minimum, 3072-bit recommend
62.
by maqp 9mo ago
* Not end-to-end encrypted by default. * No end-to-end encryption for groups. * No end-to-end encryption for desktop meaning normal use when working on computer requires you and your friends to constantly whip out phone to send 1:1 secret c
63.
by maqp 9mo ago
Whoa, at the same time it's negligible but also a LOT more than I expected. Thanks!
64.
by maqp 9mo ago
Oh I found a better explanation >iOS doesn’t allow apps to fork subprocesses. While on the desktop Tor is running as a separate process, on iOS Tor is hacked to run as a thread inside the app itself. Therefore, you can’t have a system-wi
65.
by maqp 9mo ago
Is this LoRa BT network thing something that actually exists? Is there a coverage map?
66.
by maqp 9mo ago
So other users are broadcasting messages of third parties onwards? How many devices does it take to saturate the channel? What does this do for phone battery?
67.
by maqp 9mo ago
Tell them to install bitchat. How to deliver the message to them is left as an exercise to the reader.
68.
by maqp 9mo ago
Yeah I can imagine a jam-packed cruise ship might be useful provided the signal propagates from deck to another (unlikely), but it's quite a niché use case. >Also why would one want to have the data go over some servers thousands mi
69.
by maqp 9mo ago
That's probably because AFAIK Apple doesn't allow process forking, making any Tor-based messenger almost impossible to run as Tor would have to run as part of the main thread.
70.
by maqp 9mo ago
Could someone please explain in what situation do you use a BlueTooth messaging app? Like, even BT5 range won't exceed 400 meters. What good is this? You're not going to send images to journalists from protests with it (you'd
71.
by maqp 9mo ago
As per (AFAIK) this hacker's rant on some Tor-based image board, he gloated the login credentials to the Vastaamo's systems were admin:admin. So much for 'hacker god'. This is a Hackers (1995) tier vulnerability. Also, i
72.
by maqp 9mo ago
>Signal's achievement is that it's very private while being extremely usable (it just works). Exactly. Plus it basically pioneered the multi-device E2EE. E.g., Telegram claimed defaulting to E2EE would kill multi-client support
73.
by maqp 9mo ago
Just WhatsApp. Moxie's ideas are used in plenty of other messengers. The context was "what Moxie did for the field of instant messaging".
74.
by maqp 9mo ago
3 billion WhatsApp users use protocol built on his labor, every day.
75.
by maqp 9mo ago
Ok so which iPhone app can be verified from source? Or is your problem that your peer might run the app on an insecure device? How would you exclude decade old Android devices with unpatched holes? I don't want to argue nirvana fallacy
76.
by maqp 9mo ago
My issue is it claims to be end-to-end encrypted, which is really weird. Sure, TLS between you and your bank's server is end-to-end encrypted. But that puts your trust on the service provider. Usually in a context where a cypherpunk de
77.
by maqp 9mo ago
Or, he took a barely niché messaging app plugin (OTR), improved it to provide forward secrecy for non-round trips, and deployed the current state-of-the art end-to-end encryption to over 3,000,000,000 users, as Signal isn't the only to
78.
by maqp 9mo ago
>Snowden's aim was to damage the US and its allies, and he succeeded in this. Dude, nobody's buying this nonsense. Snowden expressed his concerns multiple times. He talked about the surveillance enabling turn-key tyranny, if ev
79.
by maqp 9mo ago
>Very naive to think that the Russian and Chinese governments didn't get a full copy of the documents Snowden stole and absconded with. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >Snowden is some sort of hero? He left h
80.
by maqp 9mo ago
>It is of course very telling that Snowden ended up in Russia. Yeah it's almost like you can revoke someone's passport during their layover in Russia and make the people with MAGA-levels of intelligence take the optics at face
81.
by maqp 9mo ago
Top 5 will never cover the field. Here's my top 10 * Brookshear and Brylow - Computer Science - An Overview * Forta - Teach yourself SQL in 10 minutes * Stallings - Computer Organization and Architecture * Stallings - Operating Systems
82.
by maqp 9mo ago
HFCS is another beast. Everyone needs to watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
83.
by maqp 9mo ago
Except 99% of one-time pad implementations fail in at least one criteria: * Using CSPRNGs instead of HWRNGs to generate the pads, * Try to make it usable and share short entropy and reinvent stream ciphers, * Share that short entropy over D
84.
by maqp 9mo ago
All software has bugs. But having a small purpose-built program do one thing well is much smaller attack surface. The Unix philosophy also makes a pretty good security argument.
85.
by maqp 9mo ago
The biggest issue with PGP/gpg is the difficulty of getting rid of it. If you work on big distros, or know someone who works on big distros, please (start asking them to) add https://github.com/jedisct1/minisign t
86.
by maqp 10mo ago
>These two statements are identical. IP addresses are Internet user identifiers, not SimpleX identifiers. You are promoting SimpleX as an metadata-privacy improvement over Tor Onion Service based messengers like Cwtch, that hides the IP
87.
by maqp 10mo ago
>Unlike any other existing messaging platform, SimpleX has no identifiers assigned to the users Lies by omission. SimpleX doesn't mask your IP-address by default. It leaks to the server. The ENTIRE public SimpleX network is hosted b
88.
by maqp 10mo ago
Not open source, you can't verify the end-to-end encryption or any other measures the client uses actually happen. This makes it trivial to hide backdoors. The entire secure messaging app space is open source, why anyone would bother w
89.
by maqp 10mo ago
That's... all sorts of funny and sad to hear.
90.
by maqp 10mo ago
So why don't you present your claim with more nuance than nu-uh, then?

More ›