Live data from Hacker News

Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

docs.google.com

81–90 of 242 posts

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#81
It's funny and sad that XMPP hits almost all of the points, has been around since 1999 and yet every year someone reinvents the wheel and makes another messenger system. There are what, about 60+ by now.

Granted XMPP is not a messenger it's a protocol and a bunch of standards but still it's hard not to laugh.

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#83
post #29

Why is Signal scoring so bad?

I stopped using Signal due to being bitten by the the issue where a friend uninstalled Signal without going through a special process and then I couldn't send messages to them without changing my message type from encrypted to unencrypted every time. See report/references here[0].

[0] https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/8181

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#84
post #73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point, but the fact that there's yet another protocol, not mentioned on the XMPP E2E wiki, kinda plays into the point itself: XMPP has E2E maybe with a bunch of random protocols and the stars (and the people you talk with) need to align _just right_ for all of it to work. I think it would be fair to say that everyone uses WhatsApp and I know what they get, and at this point only XMPP people use XMPP (ex…

Fair enough, but this is kind of inherent for anything based on open standards. Was your email encrypted? It depends on whether the sending and receiving mailserver support TLS. Is your website visit perfect-forward-secret? Depends on whether your browser and the webserver support modern cipher suites. Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH. These are valid challenges…

> Is your DNS request encrypted? Only if your OS and your DNS server support DNSSEC or DoH.

DNSSEC doesn't encrypt, it only signs.

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#85
post #45

This is neat but it has plenty of flaws. I wish the definitions were spelled out. It says Signal isn't "anonymous", which I assume means "uses a phone number to find peers". And it has the usual feature matrix problem: sure XMPP "does E2E". But what does that mean? It supports S/MIME. Do you want S/MIME? (You don't.) It supports OTR, TS and SCIMP too: but you need to be an expert in messaging schemes to understand ho…

> Use WhatsApp to talk to normal people. Use Signal for nerds.

This has been my go-to advice for a while now too! The key driving point is that amazing crypto is 100% useless if the person you're talking to doesn't use it, or uses it incorrectly.

The only sticking point with the above advice is the nerds who think they understand crypto but don't and insist on you using some crazy app :/

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't WhatsApp do that? ( https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/android/28030015/ )

If I recall correctly Facebook has plans to end E2E encryption in order to serve personalized ads.

Even before then it's highly likely that they're gathering as much metadata as possible:-

* who's chatting with whom,

* via what means (text, audio, video),

* conversation time and duration,

* location of participants,

* how much data transferred etc.

There's a lot they can gather and imply from all that when WA users phone numbers will be known to FB, so they can graph connections via others' who run the FB app or previously shared their contact info. Also those who are perhaps logged in on, or simply visiting other sites they track via like/share buttons etc. Whilst what you say is encrypted, the circumstances around that conversation can be used, at least to advertise to you.

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#88

Is there any messenger that does end-to-end encryption with reliable, in-order delivery with decentralized group chat and conversation history syncing? Been looking for years but so far the double-ratchet is inadequate.

Mumble / Murmur are close to this, but without chat history syncing. End-To-End PFS encryption though. Very decentralized, but you can tie it into ldap and other authentication systems. I linked in another part of this thread.

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#89
post #81

It's funny and sad that XMPP hits almost all of the points, has been around since 1999 and yet every year someone reinvents the wheel and makes another messenger system. There are what, about 60+ by now. Granted XMPP is not a messenger it's a protocol and a bunch of standards but still it's hard not to laugh.

XMPP has a terrible user experience, which is why it's never caught on.

Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features

#90
post #23

Does anyone know what supports E2E encrypted video? (Great doc btw)

I believe video calls on Signal are?

Yes, but like most of these, that's really to do with the fact that E2E is part of the WebRTC spec, so anything built on it is safe for audio & video... the main advantage of Signal here is not leaking all your metadata.
Post reply on HN