I am a firm believer that there are many privacy techniques you should focus on before encrypted messaging because they will offer you much more “bang for your buck,” things like good passwords, two-factor authentication, and even encrypted email. That said, I still believe that encrypted messaging is a critical part of a well-rounded privacy and security strategy. While the vast majority of our day-to-day conversations may be benign, it can still offer a lot of insight into who we are as people – our routines, likes, and personal thoughts. This information – mundane or not – is worth protecting.

  • poVoq ( poVoq@slrpnk.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    XMPP, for example, does not enable end-to-end encryption by default

    Why always these false myths? The most popular XMPP mobile clients do enable it by default.

          • The Cuuuuube ( Cube6392@beehaw.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            Messengers are not protocols. They use protocols. Most XMPP clients use the same encryption scheme Signal does only without being dependent on a single specific server, allowing users to spread out. I recommend reading about the differences between targeting developing a platform and developing protocols. Once you do, you’ll see XMPP+Encryption in a better light than anything like Signal. The main problem in the current moment with XMPP+Encryption us that it isn’t where the people are. Us tech weirdos can start the push into that space a little bit, but we need “Normies” to adopt to, and for that we need to be clear on what were talking about. Comparing XMPP to signal doesn’t make sense. Comparing Cheogram to Signal does. And in the latter, cheogram frankly blows Signal out of the water for real privacy and security considerations

    • toastal ( toastal@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Right? It is a generic protocol for all sorts of communications, some of which don’t require encryption. Yet every modern chat client for human-to-human communication has OMEMO, OTR, & PGP encryption options.

        • It isn’t easy to setup and the core protocol is dated. You can add all sorts of extensions but at the end of the day the core system is old. It feels weird to push it over Matrix. If you want something simple use IRC as you can setup encryption.

          • Encryption support in IRC clients is WAY behind XMPP. The one I have seen consistently is OTR in form of an add-on, and even that people rarely install. Although IRC is indeed what I prefer for public groupchats.

            Matrix seems to be doing the same thing but consumes more resources. And as for setup - I have done that, it is indeed pretty easy, easier than Matrix.

  • Jeena ( jeena@piefed.jeena.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    What I like about Matrix so much is that it can be run fully on your own infrastructure, even the TURN server for VOIP, and you can build the clients from source yourself too.

    But I agree that it’s quite difficult to use. And until now only my dad and my spouse use it with me because they love me and trust me. But they both always have problems with their clients. It randomly logs out and then they have to login with the password and with the encryption key again. For a long time calling didn’t work because I misconfigured the server. Then videos were for the longest time uploaded in full size and anything longer than a few seconds would be rejected. The whole spaces thing is implemented very weirdly so it confuses them. And then the threads are even worse so we can’t use them because nobody gets how to do it.

  • Matrix doesn’t offer disappearing messages (which I consider important for digital minimalism and cybersecurity.

    I noticed this in the article and figured I’d throw my 2 cents in. This might be a spicy take, but I actually can’t stand apps that do this.

    When I was in school I had someone harass me online with threats of violence (they spent a couple of hours insulting and threatening me) then lie to the staff that I was harassing them with even more extreme shit. The staff and other students all took their side until I logged in and showed the conversation. If the messages had disappeared I wouldn’t have been able to prove my innocence.

    I very firmly want encrypted communications for privacy (I use Signal and Matrix), but I am quite wary of purging communications automatically. That said, it’s anyone’s right to use services that auto delete and my right not to.

    I’m curious what other people’s take on this would be.

    • Deleting messages is still a thing. If there is a message you need to preserve, take a screenshot. If you are worried that someone might think that the screenshot is fake, take a screen recording, or even better, use your phones camera to physically record your screen.

    • jokeyrhyme ( jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      For disappearing messages to work, your conversation partner has to promise they won’t take photos of their screen, and they have to promise to use an app that actually implements the feature instead of just pretending to, and the app developers have to promise to have implemented the code to delete a message when the service says it should

      Is there actually a cryptographically-sound and physically-complete method for ensuring that a message is only legible for a temporary duration once it leaves your own device and is delivered to someone elses?

  • tmpod ( tmpod@lemmy.pt ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    encrypted email

    Besides being a form of messaging (so the text somewhat contradicts itself), typical email is a deeply insecure protocol.
    In my opinion, it’s probably impossible to secure without making a new protocol or making such drastic changes that it might as well be considered one.

    Here are some key concerns regarding the usual PGP-powered encrypted email:

    • Email, at a simple level, works much akin to physical email — there’s an “envelope” containing important info regarding the communicating parties, which can’t be encrypted, otherwise the mailing servers wouldn’t know where to forward the messages. This essentially leaks a lot of metadata that can be almost as valuable as the message body itself.
    • There’s no forward secrecy — one of the best cryptography features that has become pretty much a commodity in modern systems is forward secrecy, which prevents attackers from decrypting older messages after gaining access to one of the keys.
    • While not an issue with the protocol itself, it’s the sad reality and we need to consider — most people use GMail, Outlook and the like, which ultimately need to read your emails in plaintext, for better or worse reasons (search is incredibly useful, but some big players don’t stop there of course :p).
    • Another thing is the fact that it’s incredibly easy to have an imbalance of encryption, i.e. someone is encrypting their messages, but others aren’t. With the very popular email culture of quoting (be it top or bottom posting), an unencrypted party in the the conversation can leak important information.
    • PGP is… peculiar, so to speak. I has a lot of issues, mostly stemming from its age (which could also be a source of robustness and security, due to being very battle-tested, but I don’t think that’s quite the case with PGP/GPG), tries to do too much and typically has a clunky UI, which impedes wider and proper adoption by less technically people.

    This isn’t to say people should definitely stop using and promoting encrypted email, since it can be useful.
    It’s just it gives, more often than not, a false sense of security and can lead less proficient users to send sensitive data through this medium which isn’t nearly secure enough for such use cases. Preferably, people with such threat models should opt for better alternatives, most suggested in that article (such as, but definitely not limited to, Signal, SimpleX, Matrix+Olm, XMPP+OTR/OMEMO, sharing files via MagicWormhole, encrypting with tools like age).

    On a slightly tangential note, I think someone should make a Matrix client with an email client interface. I started working on a new traditional chat client (completely nonfunctional still, very much in-dev), but I’ve been honestly thinking more and more about making one looking like an e-mail client, where there isn’t much focus on instant room-based chats, but rather on longer-lived 1-to-1 and list-like exchange of messages.

  • ramenu ( ramenu@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Why do people like Matrix? It’s really slow. Even most of the non-Electron clients consume a ton of resources (even more than Electron apps usually do).

    Especially Gomuks, by far the worst offender. It consumes nearly a gigabyte of memory and it’s a TUI.

  • JustMarkov ( JustMarkov@lemmy.ml ) Banned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    SimpleX is currently my favourite. Yeah, there are some small concerns, but where aren’t they? I hope SimpleX can grow more popular and I’m also waiting for a full-featured desktop client, so it’ll be easier to convince people to switch.

    • fira959 ( fira959@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Matrix is the worst option when it comes to avoiding metadata. A group chat with users on 10 different servers will create ten different places to store the metadata with no way for any user to delete or edit this metadata. Its a privacy nightmare.

        • fira959 ( fira959@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          All decentralized protocols have this issue. The servers need to handle metadata for chat groups, like who is part of which group. If the servers are under individual control, nobody can force them to delete this data. The question is, do you trust a non profit organisation like signal to minimize and delete metadata (which court orders have proven they do) or do you trust all individuals of a group chat to do the same when you manually ask them to.

  • We’ve been on simplex for a few months, I like it quite a bit. We made diff accounts for each device and added them all to a group.

    Notifications arrive reliably on graphene (no google services), and KDE connect.

    I don’t love the desktop client and wish I could change text size and scaling. I was able to message the dev about it in simplex and got replies which was cool

  • Sad that Wire wasn’t mentioned. I think its the only one that encrypts everything, allows anonymous accounts (no phone number needed!), and has independent clients on all platforms (no mobile app install required, but they have one) that seamlessly syncs messages on all clients

    Oh, and its free and open-source.