Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's obviously impossible.
Is it? There has got to be a blockchain magic way
How could blockchain prove that something was deleted?
Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
51–60 of 68 posts
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#52I never really got the point of (digital) self destructing messages, since the reader can easily just copy the text/data, i.e. destruct only means not available anymore after future point in time. So you're just relying on the receiver of the message to follow protocol -- as always.
Imagine two parties trust each other to have the right intentions but imperfect endpoint security. If they send private data to each other, isn’t it better for messages to expire after a useful window in case either is compromised in the future? Same reason we have expiring JWTs
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#53Same systems were introduced in 2003 when the sms messages were extremely expensive. Seems like the tech is going circles
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#54I ll be honest here: I litreally did this because i was getting tired of not being able to find a platform where i can be confident that: Yes, from an end to end there is no middleman snooping etc. I ll publish the code on github too. The idea is that on every startup, system generates a new keys to encrypt data. This site is hosted on a single docker instance and there is no output (logs etc) for now. I dont intend…
Very cool. I did something similar a while back too
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#55I ll be honest here: I litreally did this because i was getting tired of not being able to find a platform where i can be confident that: Yes, from an end to end there is no middleman snooping etc. I ll publish the code on github too. The idea is that on every startup, system generates a new keys to encrypt data. This site is hosted on a single docker instance and there is no output (logs etc) for now. I dont intend…
Unless I missing something, there are a ton of open source client side encrypted pastebins around.
E.G: 0bin.net (https://0bin.net/), with a lot of good faith in the FAQ (https://0bin.net/faq/), a basic and open source code (https://github.com/Tygs/0bin), zero JS stats on the main instance and alternative instances already in the wild. It does feature self destruct.
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#56I ll be honest here: I litreally did this because i was getting tired of not being able to find a platform where i can be confident that: Yes, from an end to end there is no middleman snooping etc. I ll publish the code on github too. The idea is that on every startup, system generates a new keys to encrypt data. This site is hosted on a single docker instance and there is no output (logs etc) for now. I dont intend…
What's wrong with the cryptpads? Anyway, a bit of feedback: 1. You really need a privacy policy 2. Instead of very long hexadecimal UUIDs use shorter IDs with more valid characters. Do you really need 128 bits for something that has to be brute forced and only lives for a limited time? Perhaps 64 bits are sufficient?
2) what would shorter IDs accomplish?
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#57Hi, normally i dont post at all. But this is my attempt to share pieces of information anonymously that expires in a certain time. Site is made in Angular and and the backend is a simple thread safe dictionary that resets every 24 hours. It is by no means a commercial solution to any problem. This is something i came up with half an hour of dev work, coz i could not find anything similar.
It looks very good for something whipped up in an hour. Did you consider using Redis as a data store for this? Seems like it would be quite easy to just generate a UUID as a key and set it with an expire time in redis. If you did consider Redis, any reason why you didn't end up using it?
Redis looks like the perfect tool, with reliable inbuilt expire mechanic.
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#58Taking advantage of this post to ask about this -- can anyone explain to me why Signal can't be implemented as a completely offline-first/PWA web-app. If we throw away the more advanced requirements of perfect forward secrecy, non repudiation, ratcheting for groups, non repudiation, why is it a bad idea to get 80% of the way there with basic offline-first/WPA (+/- secure enclave, WebAuthN, whatever else) messages tha…
You might want to check out Secure ScuttleButt. Its an offline first social media protocol. It does more than simple messaging though.
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do, but not everyone, and I'm personally not interested in an app that does it perfectly but no one can use. Also, I did not mean to imply that the features could not be done -- they ostensibly can, it's just that I am not willing to accept the lack of them or possible lack of them as a reason, because a lot of people don't even know it's happening/don't know when it's missing. More interested in increasi…
The whole point of signal is that it's secure and has reasonable UX. As soon as you can start choosing security parameters it becomes unnecessarily complicated for the average person with added scope to mess something up
Well the question is is there an even easier signal that is some reasonable mix of secure and reasonable UX? There are important features that Signal has left out (not requiring a phone number to sign up being the most egregious) -- the question I'm asking is whether there is another point in that space of tradeoffs.
Re: Show HN: Share It, Anonymously with Self Destruct Messages
#60Taking advantage of this post to ask about this -- can anyone explain to me why Signal can't be implemented as a completely offline-first/PWA web-app. If we throw away the more advanced requirements of perfect forward secrecy, non repudiation, ratcheting for groups, non repudiation, why is it a bad idea to get 80% of the way there with basic offline-first/WPA (+/- secure enclave, WebAuthN, whatever else) messages tha…
You might want to check out Secure ScuttleButt. Its an offline first social media protocol. It does more than simple messaging though.
Yeah ScuttleButt just seemed to have too much going on, I haven't looked at it in a long while (and have no reason to). I invested some time into figuring out the difference between scuttlebutt, IPFS, gun and others but it was a bit of a headache. It does feel like one of them can get you 90% of the way there though.