Wire – Modern Communications Network • Hacker News Board

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#211

Post by jeremyswank » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:10 PM UTC

ClashTheBunny wrote: post #206

vog wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, their main site doesn't work without JavaScript. Come on ... having to execute custom code in the browser just to display a "Download" button? I hope they applied more (security-related) common sense in their apps than in their website.

Processing foreign data is just as dangerous as processing foreign code. Don't lull yourself into complacency just because you have NoScript when your JPEG library is probably less sandboxed and audited than your JavaScript virtual machine. The whole idea of the Von Neumann architecture is that code is data and data is code. It is advantageous when you trust everyone, but now that you can trust noöne? What to do?

noöne? really? when did 'no one' become insufficiently clear?

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#212

Post by darklajid » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:10 PM UTC

henryaj wrote: post #149

bndr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should consider that most other messengers offer no such promises, even vague ones.

Telegram seems to put their money where their mouth is.

I'm not sure.

They offer these 'challenges', but other than that? For me, this comment of yours would we something I'd agree with if

- Telegram would start out with a protocol that works/is 'accepted' (OTR, TextSecure)

- Would make chats encrypted by default/all the time

That'd be awesome. Given that they seem to know a bit about cross-platform development and design the result might be extremely interesting. Right now? I'm not convinced.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#213

Post by qznc » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:10 PM UTC

amandine wrote: post #160

neokrish wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Layer ( https://layer.com/ ) is what you're looking for. The Verge ran an article about Layer ( http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/4/5173726/you-have-too-many-... ), on how they're attempting to stop the fragmentation on mobile messaging. Last but not the least, it's being built by Jeremie Miller, who invented XMPP.

But Layer will host it for you: you give them your data. That's more what the open standard http://matrix.org is trying to do: basically learn on what is missing from XMPP to be a better fit to today's communication: no single point of control, synced history, groupd chat as first class citizen... It aims to be pragmatic, with a distributed architecture and end to end encryption. Anyone can build a client or server (…

Looks good. It actually sees the problem with XMPP at least.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#214

Post by e12e » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:10 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #94

darklajid wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very mobile friendly .. in what way? The limitations I know of are 'fixed' with decent/recent clients (Stream Management comes to mind). Care to elaborate?

Poor offline messaging support. As a consequence practically, poor battery life management.

Is that an inherent problem in XMPP, though? Something wrong with XEP-0013?

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#215

Post by darklajid » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:13 PM UTC

secfirstmd wrote: post #205

philgr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Telegram is the best messaging app out there.

I think once Open Whisper Systems merge their products into Signal, that is going to be the best out there...Hopefully they will get the uptake they deserve.

My standard gripe with OpenText (or WhatsApp etc) is the identifier. A phone number sucks.

a) I hate the discoverability. Just because I install an app doesn't mean that my ex from ten years go should see that I'm online. Heck, my mom or aunt don't need to see me showing up in the address book either.

b) Desktop clients. Tablets with wifi only.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#216

Post by sandeepspatil » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:13 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: post #186

wodenokoto wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really matter whether they have encryption a or b? If it is poorly implemented it is unsafe. So either you trust them to do a good job or you don't. Whether someone in marketing knows the name of your favorite encryption doesn't really change that.

One hint of whether that they've poorly implemented it is that they didn't care to choose a preexisting algorithm, or they chose a preexisting algorithm with known weaknesses, or that they chose an algorithm with fiddly parameters without addressing that. I'm much more likely to trust if various indicators suggest they're being sane, reasonable and knowledgeable.

Well, they can quote the most advanced encryption algorithm, but you still can't be sure if they have really used it unless they share their code.

Bottomline: You either trust them or you don't.

One reason for them not sharing the details could be that they want the potential hackers to keep guessing rather than making their life easier (No encrytion is foolproof)

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#217

Post by mrtimuk » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:15 PM UTC

..and please let there be decent keyboard shortcuts (I'm looking at you, Skype)

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#218

Post by e12e » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:15 PM UTC

fizx wrote: post #33

NullReference wrote: post #4

"What we need is another messaging app" said nobody, ever. It looks pretty, but this is yet another app in the long list of "Skype killers" or "Voice/video/text" messaging. It seems like it's the default goto for anyone that can't think of something more interesting these days.

We didn't need yet another IRC clone, and yet Slack seems to be cleaning up. The core value prop of the internet is easy communication. Don't be surprised when people continue to iterate on it.

Slack does support IRC and XMPP transports, though? So even if $management wants Slack, I can use a single client across several networks. AFAIK Slack doesn't do federation, but one out of two, is better than none out of two.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#219

Post by lxgr » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:19 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #165

nnnnni wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they ever fix the massive security hole(s?) in whatsapp?

What massive security holes?

For example, they store the message database on the shared mass storage partition (a.k.a. SD card), where it can be read by all installed applications.

Re: Wire – Modern Communications Network

#220

Post by e12e » Wed, Dec 03, 2014, 1:19 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #14

NullReference wrote: post #4

"What we need is another messaging app" said nobody, ever. It looks pretty, but this is yet another app in the long list of "Skype killers" or "Voice/video/text" messaging. It seems like it's the default goto for anyone that can't think of something more interesting these days.

I really disagree. There's simply no good secure cross-platform messaging app available. Telegram has fantastic clients on all the platforms, but isn't secure. TextSecure is secure, but has only a mediocre app on a single platform (Android). The other alternatives are even worse. Tox is looking really promising though: https://wiki.tox.im/FAQ

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "cross-platform app". Sounds like a contradiction in terms, to me.

We have XMPP and OTR, and with chatsecure on Android or various clients on Linux it's pretty pleasant. I believe there are a few OS X clients as well, not sure about iOS.