201–210 of 350 posts
Wikipedia: "Signal relies on centralized servers that are maintained by Open Whisper Systems." Would it be possible to use the same open source proto and crypto that Signal chose, but in a way that does not rely on third parties to run servers, such as OWS, WhatsApp, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might use GMail, but I can communicate with you perfectly fine even if I don't use GMail.
And that’s why end-to-end encrypted e-mail is so very hard
http://lettergram.github.io/AnyCrypt/
The problem is we need to stop worrying about end-to-end encrypted . We need something that blocks javascript, and encrypts our messages before they even enter the pipeline (there will still be meta data though).
The extension I built was a POC just showing how it could be done easily with Keybase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their grades are based on objective assessment of properties of underlying technologies. They are very useful for most people, who are not going to study cryptography for several years and then manually reading and checking source code of every communications software product out there.
No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266
I suspect security will remain a privilege of the technical elite or those that can pay the technical elite. I guess maybe that's OK, but a bit concerning at a consumer level where it could be another factor increasing the class gap.
The thing is. How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now. As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. Not always the good countries. But this. This baffles me. Deeply.
>the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. That seems like pretty unreasonable tinfoil. There is no reason for Microsoft to want to give information to governments. I assume they don't pay, and the cost is consumer trust. Makes a lot of sense to rearchitect such that you can't give in to government demands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So Microsoft had to change the architecture (which wasn't designed with mobile devices in mind) into a more centralised approach that could work with mobile devices. As an engineer and software developer, I find this to be extremely unlikely. If "super-peers" can already route traffic for others, it seems very likely they could simply route all traffic for Mobile users through some "super-duper peer", instead of ro…
Operators have no interest in being reduced to "dumb pipes" (as the industry calls it). So OP is correct, P2P overlay routing has traditionally caused headaches for network operators traffic shaping. Any P2P tech that reaches this kind of scale would run into serious scalability challenges due to operator throtteling. - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6488287/ - https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/p2p/2008/…
Or to put it another way: If I accept the choice is between routing mobile traffic to Microsoft, or no mobile-Skype support, I don't understand how it follows that all traffic needs to move through Microsoft, or no mobile-Skype support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook has that? I can't find it.
It's called secret messages or something similar. May only be available in the messenger app...
- Open the app to the "Messages" tab.
- Tap the compose button in the top right corner
- Tap the "Secret" button in the top right corner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> on iPhone X when you accidentally click top left corner of the phone where the clock is - for some inexplicable reason the whole conversation scrolls all the way to the top, which is incredibly annoying! That's by design and standard iOS behaviour (it has been there for years). Tapping anywhere on the system toolbar (i.e. where the clock, wifi, signal strength indicators are) brings the main scrollable view to its…
I just tried it on this webpage, and you’re correct! I really dislike behavior like this that is useful to a few people but is far more likely to be encountered accidentally and feel buggy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft used centralised servers because the Skype prior to that was a curse to mobile devices running on battery power. Particularly cellphones. Skype worked as a p2p network, where some peers where marked as super peers and would help with peers behind firewalls (UDP-holepunching), and routing through the super peer. If your phone became a super peer, you could expect to essentially work like a server, with the "…
I think it was a patent issue. No one is allowed to use p2p for chat.
The thing is. How will Microsoft and Skype handle backdoors now. As far as I understood the reason Microsoft broke Skype so badly was because they used centralised servers with backdoors for countries who wanted them. Not always the good countries. But this. This baffles me. Deeply.
Microsoft used centralised servers because the Skype prior to that was a curse to mobile devices running on battery power. Particularly cellphones. Skype worked as a p2p network, where some peers where marked as super peers and would help with peers behind firewalls (UDP-holepunching), and routing through the super peer. If your phone became a super peer, you could expect to essentially work like a server, with the "…