moxie

9 ms·

31.
by moxie 10y ago
It's not just the fruit, contact with the leaves is similar to contact with poison ivy or poison oak. Sometimes people take shelter under the tree when it rains and end up in bad shape. I led a program for teens in the Caribbean one s
32.
by moxie 10y ago
> Doesn't it? Not to challenge the authority, but I believe the only requirements OTR impose are constraints on the initial presence (thus, lack of offline operation) and constraints on message ordering. It's an asynchronous wo
33.
by moxie 10y ago
OTR doesn't work in asynchronous environments, which makes it infeasible to deploy on mobile devices. I think that's a pretty severe limitation in today's world. In terms of ubiquity, Signal Protocol is running on over two b
34.
by moxie 10y ago
Not sure what you're definition of "true multi device" is, but Signal Desktop does not do phone routing and functions whether your mobile device has connectivity or not: https://whispersystems.org/blog/si
35.
by moxie 10y ago
Signal Protocol supports both multi-device and groups out of the box. WhatsApp's choice to use "device routing" was not driven by encryption protocol limitations. The Signal desktop client, for instance, does not use device
36.
by moxie 10y ago
Wire does not use Signal Protocol. They used some of our code, but created a protocol of their own devising that we do not recommend. We renamed the Axolotl ratchet and Axolotl protocol because there was a lot of confusion around what it m
37.
by moxie 10y ago
VoIP traffic is UDP, and will always be very easy to identify. We barely have functional circumvention strategies for higher-latency traffic types, so building a circumvention strategy for traffic like realtime voice with ultra low-latency
38.
by moxie 10y ago
I have no special insight, but it's a fact that SA drops VoIP traffic. The UX for that is pretty bad, calls fail to connect by timing out after 5min or whatever, and people are left trying over and over again or waiting around hoping
39.
by moxie 10y ago
The author is incorrect. While Signal Protocol is used to communicate an SRTP master secret and a session id, the clients still need to do an ICE handshake in order to establish communication with each other before the responder can even r
40.
by moxie 10y ago
Signal Protocol already supports multi-device. We've encouraged them to enable that for Secret Conversations. Voice/video etc are obviously straightforward; hopefully they'll continue to iterate towards support for e2e by def
41.
by moxie 10y ago
We've verified that FBM is using the unmodified open source Signal Protocol libraries we distribute at open whisper systems. Hopefully others will verify the same!
42.
by moxie 10y ago
Signal Protocol already supports multi-device. We've encouraged them to enable that for Secret Conversations, and hopefully they'll continue to iterate towards support for e2e by default.
43.
by moxie 10y ago
I don't know what you mean by "in the clear," but Signal has always done contact intersection with an ephemeral query of truncated hashes of phone numbers.
44.
by moxie 10y ago
I agree that it's sad. However, here's some rationale as to why we feel that it's the appropriate choice for the project: https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
45.
by moxie 10y ago
This is why the Signal team spends time working with other messengers. We want to help enable Signal Protocol in the products that everyone is already using (like WhatsApp), rather than expecting everyone to switch to our app.
46.
by moxie 10y ago
Nothing has changed. The premise of that blog post is that we'd like to do better than ephemeral intersection requests using truncated hashes of contact identifiers, but that we don't believe it's currently possible to do
47.
by moxie 10y ago
> To anyone looking on, from the outside, it looks like OWS has taken a giant flip from their previous position: This is not a "giant flip." We told Chris and everyone else both in person and publicly that they were free to use
48.
by moxie 10y ago
Yes, of course, we had a lawyer write this.
49.
by moxie 10y ago
> "I'm not OK with LibreSignal using our servers, and I'm not OK with LibreSignal using the name \"Signal.\" You're free to use our source code for whatever you would like under the terms of the license, but
50.
by moxie 10y ago
Probably, but most people aren't going to understand that LibreSignal is different from Signal. We could try to make things work differently for users calling LibreSignal, but that sets us on a path of having to constantly account for
51.
by moxie 10y ago
> i.e. Don't pretend to be "Open", altruistic, acting only in users security interests, selling benefits of open source, taking public interest donations, contributions, etc - and then prevent users from actually exercisin
52.
by moxie 10y ago
> Yep, the rest of the world has moved on. Olm already provides what Signal protocol did and the app itself is now useless to many. Olm/Megolm is not Signal Protocol. It is an entirely different protocol that has made different cho
53.
by moxie 10y ago
"Provided that you are otherwise in compliance with the GPLv3 for each covered work you convey (including without limitation making the Corresponding Source available in compliance with Section 6 of the GPLv3)..." Yes, the expecta
54.
by moxie 10y ago
> Given OWS's worries about federation and shared standards standing in the way of progress, they might want to avoid third party access simply because it might stop them from changing the server interface. Totally. Client interoper
55.
by moxie 10y ago
I think it seems clear that, in some circles, I have a number of unpopular opinions around federation, third party clients, app distribution, and what technologies are necessary or appropriate for large scale adoption of end to end encrypti
56.
by moxie 10y ago
Tough crowd! That's what we used to do, but some extremely vocal people weren't satisfied, so we've done this to integrate our intentions into the license itself.
57.
by moxie 10y ago
Just to be pedantic, there is no such thing as Axolotl. Olm is a new protocol, different from Signal Protocol, that uses the double ratchet internally for part of its function. However, they've made other design decisions that are diff
58.
by moxie 10y ago
Hey Chris, as you know, we have no problem with you distributing our GPL software through the app store. Most of your communication has centered around asking us to change the license on our source base to something other than the GPL. We
59.
by moxie 10y ago
Matrix uses an encryption protocol of their own devising that employs the double ratchet, which is one component of Signal Protocol. But it's not Signal Protocol, it's their own thing.
60.
by moxie 10y ago
I'm writing from the perspective of Signal, which is not a business, so it's definitely not about monetizing users for us.

More ›