I’ve been inspecting this topic quite a lot and I’m a little confused now. So, we have reasons not to use Signal, reasons not to use Matrix, there were also some claims about Session being a fraught. Briar is mostly activists related (not very suitable for daily use), XMPP lacks good clients and suffers from fragmentation of protocol standards implementation, SimpleX is too feature-incomplete (no UnifiedPush support, big battery drain on Android, very decent desktop client without any message sync). I can’t say a lot about Threema or Wire, as I’m not very familiar with them.

So, my question is — is there any good private messenger at all? What do you think is the most acceptable option?

EDIT: In addition to my post:

All messengers have their flaws, I’m well aware of that. I was interested in hearing users’ opinions regarding these shortcomings, not in finding the perfect messenger. I may have worded my thoughts incorrectly, sorry for that.

  • Dessalines ( dessalines@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 years ago

    Almost all those can be self-hosted, and built from source, so matrix, xmpp, simplex, are fine. Don’t use anything that’s uses a centralized server in a five eyes country, like signal or threema.

  • jherazob ( jherazob@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    Snikket is an attempt to solve the XMPP issues, or at least to reduce them, single all-in-one XMPP server distro and clients across platforms, and since it’s self-hosted no one should get their hands on your data (in normal circumstances).

    That said, the saying goes “Perfect is the enemy of Good”. Just because a solution is not perfect doesn’t make it unusable, any of those options you mention full of problems are a helluva better than FB Messenger or plain SMS for example. Depending on your threat model they might be more than enough.

  • rcbrk ( rcbrk@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    XMPP lacks good clients and suffers from fragmentation of protocol standards implementation

    • For Android: Conversations is excellent, also on F-Droid if you don’t want to use the Google store.
    • For iOS/MacOS: Siskin or iOS/MacOS: Monal.
    • For Linux/Windows: Gajim or Linux: Dino.

    “Protocol fragmentation” is not a valid complaint about XMPP – it’s like complaining that ActivityPub is fragmented; but that’s not a problem: you use the services (Mastodon, Lemmy, Kbin, etc) built with it which suit your needs, mostly interacting with that sector of the federation (eg, Lemmy+Kbin), but get a little interoperability with other sectors as a bonus (eg, Lemmy+Mastodon).

  • MalReynolds ( MalReynolds@slrpnk.net ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Depends a lot on who you’re talking to, and your, and their threat models. For many, signal provides pretty good protection, which brings us to a salient point, anything that actually provides good security will attract plenty of negativity, often from state level actors who feel (are) threatened. If you’re playing at that level, adam_y is right, dead drops and one time pads. Presuming lesser threat, signal beats telegram and FB etc. Email is plaintext unless proton to proton, encrypted email is fine (look at PGP) and indeed if you encrypt at home before sending it’s pretty much a dead drop anyway, as long as the other party has a key, and I’m wandering off the beaten path.

    Seems you want a secure messenger that works and are scared by random crap because you don’t have the relevant knowledge to decide (spoiler, very few do, and it’s insider knowledge, the world is imperfect), fair enough, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. As long as you’re willing to give up your phone number, Signal is well regarded (exchange privacy for security, you decide). But yeah, no perfects, world imperfect, trust hard, deal ;)

  • troed ( troed@fedia.io ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t consider those comments regarding Matrix as problematic. Don’t use someone else’s server if you don’t trust them - including a third party lookup server.

    /selfhosting Matrix

    • toastal ( toastal@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s a 90% chance the other end of your conversation will be with someone on Matrix dot org or a server they host for a organization. Like email, your other end is likely still using Google or Microsoft so the metadata & anything else unencrypted is going to be synced back to the centralized server.

  • People say this over and over “depends on your threat model” and yet people seem to have a hard time understanding that. Your threat model is “who is your adversary and what he is willing/able to do”. Your security goal is what do you want to keep from your adversary.

    As others said, if you are an activist or sth important, perhaps you might want to build a working knowledge of cryptography yourself. If you just want META not being able to see your NSFW chat with your romantic partner Signal might be more than enough. In fact, people way more relevant than me also suggest that Signal is good even for bounty hunter vulnerability reporting.

    Having said that, what bugs me most is that people think the instant messaging format as suitable for everything: activism, jobs, crimes, broadcasting 1970’s prog rock for extraterestrials , whatever lmao. Do you really want to use your phone for all that? Like, just carrying the phone around in the first place nullifies your other precautions, for all advanced threat models beyond privacy of non-critical social messaging.

    Persistent/resourceful adversaries can eventually get to you, using a set of penetration and intelligence techniques, which means, if you are involved, the convenience of messaging your partners in crime from the phone in your pocket while waiting for a bus is a convenience you probably can’t afford.

  • It really just depends on your threat model.

    Think it in this way: What is the most secure way to walk in the city? You’ll need a team of armed bodyguards and wear a full bulletproof vest. Do you REALLY need this level of security? Who are you protecting from? If the answer is a criminal organization or law enforcement, then yes, probably. But if the answer is a random thief, then you’ll probably need to just carry a gun, pepper spray, knife etc.

    Same goes for privacy online and messenger in this case. Are you an activist or a drug dealer? Then you’ll probably need Tails + something like SimpleX via TOR. Otherwise, if you are just concerned of typical surveillance capitalism (and don’t want the government to scan your chats like it probably will in the EU after Chat Control), in my opinion, Signal is the best compromise of privacy, security and convenience.

  • You will always find problems associated with every thing but here’s some recommandations :

    For a good start, Signal and his forks (molly…)

    For daily basis and better than Signal, choose SimpleX (SimpleX is only feature incomplete for the mainstream app, but in it you can send texts, voices, photos, videos, live messages, have a PP, a alias for your contacts…)

    Important stuff and activism, use Briar

    • Briar is really interesting but it doesn’t work as well for a casual messager. It is a bit complex to setup and very hard to understand unless you have strong knowledge on the subject. I think it is very powerful but breaks the standard convention most messaging applications follow.

  • mox ( mox@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    There are a few that do a good job of protecting our messages with end-to-end encryption, but no single one fits all use cases beyond that, so we have to prioritize our needs.

    Signal is pretty okayish at meta-data protection (at the application level), but has a single point of failure/monitoring, requires linking a phone number to your account, can’t be self-hosted in any useful way, and is (practically speaking) bound to services run by privacy invaders like Google.

    Matrix is decentralized, self-hostable, anonymous, and has good multi-device support, but hasn’t yet moved certain meta-data into the encrypted channel.

    SimpleX makes it relatively easy to avoid revealing a single user ID to multiple contacts (queue IDs are user IDs despite the misleading marketing) and plans to implement multi-hop routing to protect meta-data better than Signal can (is this implemented yet?), but lacks multi-device support, lacks group calls, drops messages if they’re not retrieved within 3 weeks, and has an unclear future because it depends on venture capital to operate and to continue development.

    I use Matrix because it has the features that I and my contacts expect, and can route around system failures, attacks, and government interference. This means it will still operate even if political and financial landscapes change, so I can count on at least some of my social network remaining intact for a long time to come, rather than having to ask everyone to adopt a new messenger again at some point. For my use case, these things are more important than hiding which accounts are talking to each other, so it’s a tradeoff that makes sense for me. (Also, Matrix has acknowledged the meta-data problem and indicated that they want to fix it eventually.)

    Some people have different use cases, though. Notably, whistleblowers and journalists whose safety depends on hiding who they’re talking to should prioritize meta-data protection over things like multi-device support and long-term network resilience, and should avoid linking identifying info like a phone number to their account.

    • Matrix is decentralized, self-hostable, anonymous, and has good multi-device support, but hasn’t yet moved certain meta-data into the encrypted channel.

      yet? do they have plans? I’m (relatively) a fan of their platform because of federation, but I thought that it’s not really possible, or at least a very much lot of hard work and even more to change that

      • mox ( mox@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t remember the statement in the bug report verbatim, but it indicated that they intend to fix it, which is about what I had previously seen on other issues that they did subsequently fix. I expect it’s mainly a matter of prioritizing a long to-do list.

        I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be possible. The protocol is continually evolving, after all, and they already moved message content to an encrypted channel that didn’t originally exist. Moving other events into it seems like a perfectly sensible next step in that direction.

        • I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be possible

          I was in the impression that the protocol was designed with that in mind that the server can do certain things in response to certain other things happening. I think the room membership management part of the client spec writes about this.

          But yeah, this can probably change, especially that they are now doing versioning

          • mox ( mox@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Worth mentioning just in case you’re not aware: versioning is present not just on the protocol spec, but on individual rooms. That ought to ease any semantics changes that might be needed.

  • Wire is the best for security (it literally won’t let you send messages unencrypted), cost (its free), privacy (no phone number required), and usability for the masses (Foss client on all the platforms, messages sync between each client like you’d expect)

    I haven’t found anything that checks all those boxes other than Wire (though I do wish we had other options that came close)

    https://Wire.com