Live data from Hacker News

TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

whispersystems.org

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#11
I'm a big fan of TextSecure and recommended it to all my friends, both those in IT and 'normal' people. Usually, I managed to convince them that the open source nature of TextSecure and the crypto experts behind it (e.g. Moxie) make it more secure than Threema/... . However, the more sceptical ones among my friends always asked two questions, which I didn't have a good answer for:

1. What is TextSecure's business model? Who pays for the server infrastructure?

2. Doesn't WhisperSystems belong to Twitter? Twitter is a US-company (and also part of the NSA stuff), so why should I use that kind of software? [Edit for clarification: I'm from Germany, where the US/Twitter affiliation is seen as a downside by some people].

It would be great if TextSecure/Open Whispersystems publicly addressed these points. I have seen that there's a reply from Moxie here: http://support.whispersystems.org/customer/portal/questions/...

but these two questions are so central that they deserve more attention than a reply in the support forum. From a technological point of view, TextSecure wins hands down. Now it's time to convince those who are still skeptical because of other reasons.

Just to be clear: I want TextSecure to become successful. I'm a big fan. That's why I'm mentioning this: in order to help spread the word.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a comment you could have written without even reading my comment. You haven't responded to anything I just wrote. I'm not surprised; your function in TextSecure threads seems to be to pop out and complain about TextSecure without mentioning that you're the author of Cryptocat, a competing (and inferior) offering.

I think TextSecure is an excellent and inspiring project. All I'm trying to do is identify an area of concern for me. I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here. I think my initial point of concern stands and I hope the TextSecure developers will work on addressing it. And yes — I believe my work on Cryptocat does grant me some helpful perspective on the kind of issues faced in group chat. I'm more than hap…

I'm not attacking you personally. I object to the fact that you didn't lead with the fact that you compete with TextSecure. As for your tone regarding the TextSecure project, here are all your messages regarding TextSecure:

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Akaeporan#!/comment/foreve...

I am, however, happy to attack your project, Cryptocat, which I believe to be incompetently interviewed, debugged into existence, and dangerous to its users.

Finally, you still haven't responded to my comment upthread.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#13
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think TextSecure is an excellent and inspiring project. All I'm trying to do is identify an area of concern for me. I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here. I think my initial point of concern stands and I hope the TextSecure developers will work on addressing it. And yes — I believe my work on Cryptocat does grant me some helpful perspective on the kind of issues faced in group chat. I'm more than hap…

I'm not attacking you personally. I object to the fact that you didn't lead with the fact that you compete with TextSecure. As for your tone regarding the TextSecure project, here are all your messages regarding TextSecure: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Akaeporan#!/comment/foreve... I am, however, happy to attack your project , Cryptocat, which I believe to be incompetently interviewed, debugged into existence, a…

I'm sorry, but I don't think your approach to this discussion is constructive. I hope TextSecure developers address my initial concern, and that's all for me.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not attacking you personally. I object to the fact that you didn't lead with the fact that you compete with TextSecure. As for your tone regarding the TextSecure project, here are all your messages regarding TextSecure: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=author%3Akaeporan#!/comment/foreve... I am, however, happy to attack your project , Cryptocat, which I believe to be incompetently interviewed, debugged into existence, a…

I'm sorry, but I don't think your approach to this discussion is constructive. I hope TextSecure developers address my initial concern, and that's all for me.

mpOTR sacrifices forward secrecy and provides transcript consistency with limited semantics, which has the side effect of making the "transcript integrity feature" trivial to implement, because the protocol supports only a silly version of it. mpOTR clients can't simply fix this with UI, because these are properties of the protocol.

The TextSecure protocol retains forward secrecy at the message layer and provides continuous transcript integrity. The TextSecure client hasn't worked out the UI for it, but the protocol supports it. TextSecure can provide continuous transcript integrity with a UI update --- something mpOTR clients can't do at all.

But here you are, sniping at TextSecure for lacking a UI feature that you've implemented a minimal and un-useful version of. Then, when called on it, you retreat to a position of "I'm inspired by TextSecure and am just trying to help". As if, after blogging about why transcript integrity is literally one of the reasons TextSecure doesn't use mpOTR, they were unaware of the importance of the feature.

mpOTR is a dead end. It's unfortunate you invested in it, but that is what it is.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#16

I would love to have a console or even web client for this. Or is anyone aware of a secure group chat application to replace IRC (or SILC for that matter)?

As far as I now, there is a in-browser client (a browser extension, iirc) in development.

Your second question is harder. I don't know of a better solution than a self-hosted jabber-server with https.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#17
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I don't think your approach to this discussion is constructive. I hope TextSecure developers address my initial concern, and that's all for me.

mpOTR sacrifices forward secrecy and provides transcript consistency with limited semantics, which has the side effect of making the "transcript integrity feature" trivial to implement, because the protocol supports only a silly version of it. mpOTR clients can't simply fix this with UI, because these are properties of the protocol. The TextSecure protocol retains forward secrecy at the message layer and provides con…

Thanks for agreeing to turn the discussion in a more constructive direction, Thomas.

I agree that mpOTR is a dead end. The initial paper by Goldberg et al describes a protocol that is bulky and largely undefined. I should mention that for those reasons, Cryptocat's group chat effort has been relabelled to "mpCat" instead of "mpOTR" — we're moving on to creating a protocol suitable for synchronous use-cases specifically (since TextSecure already has the asynchronous use-case figured out) without shouldering the bulkiness and obsolete nature delineated in mpOTR's original description. One of the things that is actually addressed better is transcript consistency: in mpCat, it will function on a level of reliability that is in fact continuous and not just occurs once per entire conversation.

We recently concluded mpCat's first review summit, and were very lucky to have the feedback of experts such as Trevor Perrin, Joseph Bonneau and Ximin Luo. We also invited members from TextSecure's team in order to help us understand the use-cases scenarios they have experience in. For what it's worth, the TextSecure members that were invited were seen as open source peers, and not as "competitors" as you put it. I should mention that TextSecure's research frequently came up while working on mpCat, and that they are contributing more to this field than most other projects. That's why I say they are inspiring.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#18

I'm a big fan of TextSecure and recommended it to all my friends, both those in IT and 'normal' people. Usually, I managed to convince them that the open source nature of TextSecure and the crypto experts behind it (e.g. Moxie) make it more secure than Threema/... . However, the more sceptical ones among my friends always asked two questions, which I didn't have a good answer for: 1. What is TextSecure's business mod…

Afaik TextSecures server infrastructure consists mainly of Google Play Services which comes at no financial costs for them but with the downside of depending on Google to temporary store encrypted text.

Re: TextSecure's Private Group Messaging

#19

I'm a big fan of TextSecure and recommended it to all my friends, both those in IT and 'normal' people. Usually, I managed to convince them that the open source nature of TextSecure and the crypto experts behind it (e.g. Moxie) make it more secure than Threema/... . However, the more sceptical ones among my friends always asked two questions, which I didn't have a good answer for: 1. What is TextSecure's business mod…

I'd like a good answer to the first question as well (it would be ideal if there was an easy way we could host it ourselves), at least OpenWhisperSystems does not belong to Twitter [0]:

> Whisper Systems was a company focused on the development of mobile security software, which was acquired by Twitter in late 2011. Twitter very generously made some of the Whisper Systems software available under an Open Source license (GPLv3), which has since been under open development by the community. The software has seen a number of new releases based on that open development, and we’ve been calling the project for this continued work “Open Whisper Systems.” Welcome to the project’s new home.

https://whispersystems.org/blog/welcome/

Post reply on HN