Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

ntfy.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 306 posts

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#91

Post by JayGuerette »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #20
spuz wrote: post #17

When I was making my IoT washing machine sensor, I used Blynk.io to push notifications to my phone but of course that service became commercialised and is no longer free. I could not find any nice easy to use alternative except for Telegram which is what I use now. This service looks exactly like what I would need and I appreciate the promise to keep it open source.

https://pushover.net/ Has existed for several years. It works great for me.

I've used pushover for years as well. I wish they would charge me $5/y instead of a $5/lifetime. I've asked them to do that. I want this service to last.

I set up Tasker on my phone such that when a specific low-priority (no visible/audible alert) message from pushover, containing only a hash key, is received it picks it up and does an HTTPS request to my self-hosted server to retrieve the actual notification text.

I have a bash/websocat client connected 24/7 to wss://client.pushover.net/ as well that I should probably put up on git for other people.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#92

Post by krn »

kube-system wrote: post #85
krn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E2E encryption happens on the client side, not on the server side. Therefore, no need to trust anybody, as long as the software is open-source.

> Therefore, no need to trust anybody, as long as the software is open-source. Demonstrably untrue. You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy, they have implemented a strong security posture for their project, and that the code is reviewed by people who are trustworthy. Many open-source projects have been, and continue to be, compromised on a regular basis.

> You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy

In theory, that's only the case if you are unable to review the code yourself.

In practice, it's like saying that TLS encryption is pointless, because one needs to trust every single person who implements it.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#93

Post by krn »

seqastian wrote: post #88
krn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you working out the details on recovery and storage, handling lost devices, configuring a communication channel for sharing certs/keys, managing several crypto dependencies and libraries - all so that you can go "Hey - what's up!" in a notification to your phone? In 2022, there is no need to invent anything new about E2E encryption. There are many successful open-source examples, including Keybase and Firefox S…

> I personally wouldn't even run a public service for others without E2E encryption. So don't? seems like everyone got what they wanted.

Well, thinking logically: if everyone really got what they wanted, that question wouldn't be in the FAQ, would it?

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#94

Post by hatware »

krn wrote: post #58
krono wrote: post #44

From the FAQ[1]: > Will you know what topics exist, can you spy on me? > If you don't trust me or your messages are sensitive, run your own server. This is the way. No pinky promises in whitepaper format[2] that leave out the most important bits, no meticulously constructed but entirely meaningless marketing statements[3][4], but unassuming and deferential logic with a mitigation path. 1: https://ntfy.sh/docs/faq/#wi…

Why couldn't the entire system be E2E encrypted by default, though? In 2022, that's my standard expectation from any service. Even such things as Pocket / Instapaper / Raindrop should come with E2E encryption by default. It's better for the service provider, too: no issues with GDPR, or in case of a database hack.

>Why couldn't the entire system be E2E encrypted by default, though?

Probably because getting the system together in its current state was enough work.

> In 2022, that's my standard expectation from any service.

You have high standards. Do you expect others to raise their standards as high as yours...?

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#95

Post by RicoElectrico »

easton wrote: post #2

Super cool! I did something like this for personal use using a Discord bot (which you can also just POST to with no fancy backend if you want).

Yeah, a one-person Discord "server" is a great way to have e.g. RSS notifications (via MonitoRSS) as well as simple bots. It is just remarkably straightworward - you don't need to register an app, just generate a webhook token and then curl a simple json to that endpoint. Now, I was confused and thought webhooks are somehow standardized, but they're not. It's kinda like RSS in reverse, with an application defined payload.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#97

Post by jacooper »

binwiederhier wrote: post #51
CommitSyn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat project. Where does the funding come from?

It's quite cheap to run. It's just one small EC2 instance, and it's usually idling around a load average of 0.1 (though right now it's at 1, hehe). It costs me about $24/month. The Apple developer license costs $100 per year, so it's ~$400/year. As of recently, that's entirely covered by donations. I am incredibly humbled by the sponsorships. I would have never thought ntfy would take off like that. I love open sourc…

If you would like to lower the cost more, I think switching to a cheaper cloud service like Linode or Hetzner would be the way to go.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#98

Post by OJFord »

londons_explore wrote: post #25
superasn wrote: post #3

Very nice. I use a telegram bot for doing this as telegram API also makes it a simple GET request to send such notifications to yourself (once you have created a bot). Also it's surprisingly hard to kill telegram for some reason so it's kinda robust. My stupid mi phone is quite aggresive in killing most background apps except whatsapp and telegram.

I find telegram messages only get insta-delivered about half the time. The other half, they're delayed till I next re-open the app. Doesn't seem to happen with any other app. I suspect it's because I'm subscribed to too many high traffic group chats, and even though they're muted, the telegram servers still send large numbers of push notifications for them, which eventually start hitting some rate limit and everythin…

> I find telegram messages only get insta-delivered about half the time. The other half, they're delayed till I next re-open the app. Doesn't seem to happen with any other app.

That happens to me with WhatsApp. Curiously a message to Telegram kicks it back into gear too. My fiancee first messages me 'calling' on Telegram before calling on WhatsApp, because she figured out (remotely, by experience) that otherwise it often doesn't ring.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#99

Post by hatware »

krn wrote: post #92
kube-system wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, no need to trust anybody, as long as the software is open-source. Demonstrably untrue. You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy, they have implemented a strong security posture for their project, and that the code is reviewed by people who are trustworthy. Many open-source projects have been, and continue to be, compromised on a regular basis.

> You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy In theory, that's only the case if you are unable to review the code yourself. In practice, it's like saying that TLS encryption is pointless, because one needs to trust every single person who implements it.

We're sure you review all the code you run.

Re: Ntfy.sh – Send push notifications to your phone via PUT/POST

#100

Post by kube-system »

krn wrote: post #92
kube-system wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, no need to trust anybody, as long as the software is open-source. Demonstrably untrue. You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy, they have implemented a strong security posture for their project, and that the code is reviewed by people who are trustworthy. Many open-source projects have been, and continue to be, compromised on a regular basis.

> You must trust that the contributors are trustworthy In theory, that's only the case if you are unable to review the code yourself. In practice, it's like saying that TLS encryption is pointless, because one needs to trust every single person who implements it.

That's only the case if I am unable to review the code myself, before any update, I fully understand the code, and I am smart enough that the contributors are unable to pull a fast one on me.

Given that I'm not a cryptography expert, I have a limited number of hours in the day, and open-source supply chain attacks are typically obfuscated, I don't consider that to be a trivial statement.

Post reply on HN