11–20 of 145 posts
Everything from the text to the graphics are intended to mislead and obscure. I don’t think i’ve seen a company act in such bad faith since theranos was a thing.
> For those who want additional control of their keys, an on-premise solution exists today for the entire meeting infrastructure, and a solution will be available later this year to allow organizations to leverage Zoom’s cloud infrastructure but host the key management system within their environment. Additionally, enterprise customers have the option to run certain versions of our connectors within their own data ce…
Doesn't Jitsi have the same problem? The solution is the same: Run your own server. End to end encrypted videoconferencing does not scale easily without a server. > Is Jitsi Meet end-to-end encrypted? #409 > ... "yes, https://meet.jit.si/ encrypts the communication, only the two clients and our server has access to them". ... [1] [1]: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/409
> Is Jitsi Meet end-to-end encrypted? #409
> ... "yes, https://meet.jit.si/ encrypts the communication, only the two clients and our server has access to them". ... [1]
In fact, "yes, .. " is an answer to the question "is it reasonable to use Jitsi Meet from an untrusted wifi network?". It was written by a user of Jitsi and not one of the developers.
A developer answers "when talking on meet.jit.si your stream is encrypted on the network but decrypted on the machine that hosts the bridge."
Am I misunderstanding something? This doesn’t seem like it should be controversial.
Don’t all these products need to do this if one of the participants is using a regular phone? It’s just impossible to support phone dial in otherwise. They claim to do end to end encryption if there are no phones on the call.
wow!! zoom you were better off not having written that blog. you guys are some shady assholes. Everything from the text to the graphics are intended to mislead and obscure. I don’t think i’ve seen a company act in such bad faith since theranos was a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't Jitsi have the same problem? The solution is the same: Run your own server. End to end encrypted videoconferencing does not scale easily without a server. > Is Jitsi Meet end-to-end encrypted? #409 > ... "yes, https://meet.jit.si/ encrypts the communication, only the two clients and our server has access to them". ... [1] [1]: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/409
Yes... but in one case the software is entirely FOSS and readily deployable via a docker image. The Zoom server is not FOSS, or even accessible through their GitHub. https://github.com/jitsi/docker-jitsi-meet
Let's demand end-to-end encryption for people connecting via FAX machines to read only the comments.
Of course connecting via unreliable machines / protocols means Zoom must have some bridge on their side somewhere.
In light of this post it looks like for the majority of users it is end-to-end encrypted.
I don't even use Zoom, but really, these attacks are starting to be annoying. From what I've seen all Zoom's reply is bang-on and they will come out of this even stronger.
In fairness, it sounds like it’s end to end encrypted until a legacy device connects. Am I misunderstanding something? This doesn’t seem like it should be controversial.
I just find the Zoom hate weird. We have no reason to think Teams, Hangouts, or anything else does anything close to or better than this. Lots of reason to suspect they probably don't.
Don't get me wrong, I think the scrutiny is good, and will lead to positive outcomes. But we probably need to scrutinize all these vendors