5
direct messages in jerboa?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35822 readers
214 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
as an abstract thought... I have not seen a technical reason prohibiting federated e2e encrypted messages at some point in the future. so, when development can shift immediate focus from the "must-haves" and toward the "nice-to-haves", we may well get secure, private, on-network DMs.
I know that soatok made a proposal for this a while ago, but I don't know if it went anywhere.
thanks for this link! i had not seen it before.
I think the normal issue prohibiting e2e encrypted messages being actually good is that end to end encryption requires keys, and keys require verification, and verification requires a trusted outside channel.
As it stands I would want a secure line to some random user I don't know anything about, so I need a key. Where do I get a user's key? I ask the same untrusted admin of their lemmy instance for it and they give it to me. How do I validate this key is actually this user's? I don't, I just trust the key the admin gave me. Then I encrypt my message and send it over.
So it protects against an honest instance being attacked later. Or against a shortsighted admin who might feel a little like peeking but hadn't thought about being dishonest yet.
But in exchange for a smidge of security, what you gain is that new clients can't read any DM you received before you started using it, or a buggy client who hasn't synced the keys lately sending a message that only 2 of your clients can read but not the one you're using right now. Or a phone falling into a toilet and effectively taking all your DMs with it because either there was no UI to back up your keys, or there was one but you didn't use it because no one ever uses it, or there is a UI to backup the keys but no UI to import them on the next client, etc.
indeed, difficult problems abound - but signal or briar style tradeoffs may be acceptable to those looking to make use of encrypted DM type comms.
this comment by @yote_zip@pawb.social in the thread points to at least one early consideration on the issue.
anyone who cares (as you do) knows that e2ee is hard as hell to implement properly, especially when its user facing. lots of traps at every step, but there are possible paths if we define what we want to achieve and make that scope crystal clear to the user. improper / mistaken tool use is often much worse than no tool at all. federation makes tool selection all the more important.
as for me, fediverse e2ee would be an initial channel to establish connections that may lead to other, more suitable channels. confirmed identity of internet strangers (beyond initial key exchange) in this particular venue is less important to me than the ability to pass a few ephemeral, secure messages. in my world, who I send my grandmother's super secret meat sauce recipe to is slightly less important than putting clear text on the wire or into instance storage for anyone to potentially see... forever. everyone has their own requirements and its unlikely that fedi e2ee will satisfy them all.
oo I got pinged when you wrote my name (I think?). Good to know that's how that works. I agree that as it stands we're nowhere close to proper encryption on DMs - we shouldn't even try to be implementing half-measures as a stand-in. I would guess that the best option would be to put a warning above DMs saying "this isn't encrypted, the instance owner can read what you write, if you want encrypted conversation use e.g. Matrix or Signal". I know that there's a slot for a Matrix username on my Lemmy profile, so there might even be some potential for integration there.
On the topic of "everyone has their own requirements", Soatok actually says the following in their article:
Most (all?) of these vulnerabilities have since been fixed, but it goes to show that even a titan like Matrix still cannot be trusted to handle perfect encryption.
It looks like Soatok's proposal has been stalled on their github (probably because they got busy with something else in the meantime).
Not sure if this will ping correctly since their handle is from mastodon but @soatok@furry.engineer if you care to share any thoughts on this topic (E2EE DMs w/ ActivityPub) since your blog post was referenced. I'm not even close to being good at cryptography so forgive anything stupid I said
Edit: Actually it looks like the language I proposed is already there:
completely agreed wrt your reply. encryption is serious business and I am pretty sure that physicists will eventually discover a fundamental law of the universe already known to mathematicians - "never roll your own".
having said that, we do have examples of state of the art trustless key distribution and encryption frameworks that are believe to be robust. adapting a suitable fedi e2ee framework is likely quite some time away, but I think it is something that should be on the radar and gently agitated for - at least to keep the underlying activitypub protocol agnostic to it during continued buildout.
anyone reading this thread and interested in possible federated e2ee should take a look at the excellent article that you highlighted. it starts a thought process and gives an entry point for contribution and collaboration. again, thanks for sharing, it was a great read.