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

Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

path.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#31

Post by 0xeeeeeeee »

wlesieutre wrote: post #17
dmix wrote: post #6

"Deleted from our server" assumes the user has no understanding of data forensics. We really need TextSecure on iOS soon to stop the proliferation of all of these silly privacy apps. There needs to be a strong cross-platform alternative.

How about Wickr? https://www.mywickr.com/

TextSecure is very open about the crypto protocol and provides details that independent researchers can evaluate. It's also made by a well-known expert that we trust to do it right.

Wickr is pretty shady about their protocol.

They also make me uneasy because they use the term "military-grade encryption" a couple times on their site. This is a pretty common snake-oil security term...so it makes me uneasy since the protocol details are nowhere to be found.

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#32

Post by Spearchucker »

thenipper wrote: post #27
lttlrck wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the sender can do that.

What if the sender is offline when the receiver signs back on? Does the message not get sent?

You'd use a basic store/forward protocol. Sender sends message to a zero-knowledge server. If the sender has no network the encrypted message is stored locally, on the client device until the server can be reached.

Similarly, the recipient polls the server for new messages only when online. Any messages accumulated by the server since the last sync are downloaded. That's the easy part. More interesting is the key exchange that needs to take place between sender and recipient for them to exchange messages securely. The idea being that both parties each create a public/private key pair for each other, and then use each others public key to encrypt the symmetric key that decrypts messages.

Straight-forward enough. The problem here is when you want to exchange messages with Bob, you need to know that you have the real Bob's public key, and not an imposter's key. While an in-person, meatspace exchange will give you the assurance you need, that's not always practical.

Here's a bit more detail on how you might engineer the key exchange: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needham-Schroeder_protocol

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#34

Post by cabalamat »

> We take your privacy seriously.

That's a funny way of spelling "we will give all your data to the NSA".

If they really cared about my privacy, then their app would encrypt the data on the way out and automatically decrypt it by the receiver, so that any information on their servers would be unreadable. Oh and their app would also be open source.

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#35

Post by mahyarm »

paulgb wrote: post #22
LeoPanthera wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even iMessage uses end-to-end encryption. It's a pretty poor sign if it's less secure than the service already built into the phone. (And yeah I know iMessage isn't open source and so this is difficult to verify, but "Talk" isn't open either. Apple published a big PDF about how they do encryption - if this were proved to be false it would destroy all trust in Apple forever, so I believe what they say.) Big PDF: http:…

Interesting, did not know that. Apple is still in a position to MITM the transaction if they wanted though (Telegram provides a key visualization that can be compared offline to prevent this)

Unless telegram changed their protocol recently, it's a fundementally flawed design. Telegram can also MITM you with their design too.

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#36

Post by dchuk »

eswat wrote: post #19
dchuk wrote: post #11

Does Path have any interest at all in making money so they can, ya know, become a real business? Or are they just another participant in the big-VC social network app ponzi scheme?

I addressed this in another comment, but the ability to message businesses that they are rolling out in the summer would be their gateway to actually making money (businesses want to hear feedback about themselves but there aren’t many solutions that address this well yet).

Huh? Isn't Path all about small private social networks? What the heck does business feedback have to do with anything?

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#37

Post by yeleti »

jmuguy wrote: post #28
dmix wrote: post #6

"Deleted from our server" assumes the user has no understanding of data forensics. We really need TextSecure on iOS soon to stop the proliferation of all of these silly privacy apps. There needs to be a strong cross-platform alternative.

Here here, I go through a range of emotions each time I see a new messaging app and they always end with me checking the WhisperSystems blog.

True, i remember the whispersystems fanboys trolling all over the telegram.org founders.

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#38

Post by eswat »

dchuk wrote: post #36
eswat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed this in another comment, but the ability to message businesses that they are rolling out in the summer would be their gateway to actually making money (businesses want to hear feedback about themselves but there aren’t many solutions that address this well yet).

Huh? Isn't Path all about small private social networks? What the heck does business feedback have to do with anything?

Path acquired a company that deals only in business feedback and say they’re rolling out their tech - even if they don’t plainly say it - in the summer (check the bottom of the talk page).

Just because they’re dealing with private social networks now doesn’t mean they can’t tap into another market, especially now when the private social network thing doesn’t seem to be working out for them.

http://blog.path.com/post/89363978092/path-talkto

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#39

Post by eswat »

jljljl wrote: post #30
eswat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed this in another comment, but the ability to message businesses that they are rolling out in the summer would be their gateway to actually making money (businesses want to hear feedback about themselves but there aren’t many solutions that address this well yet).

Don't businesses already get a lot of this through Twitter, Facebook, Get Satisfaction, and other sources?

This is all public though. Given Path is a "private" social network then if businesses can resolve issues without getting into a public mess, talking to the customer in a private tunnel in a sense, it’s easier to diffuse situations.

Re: Talk – Smart, Private Messaging

#40

Post by johnchristopher »

yoshyosh wrote: post #26
johnchristopher wrote: post #7

I don't understand why the new chat protocols and clients focus solely on mobile (phone?) platforms. Why aren't there more desktop clients ?

Next time you are out, check out what most people are doing on their phones. SMS dominates usage so much. Most people don't use desktop chat outside of tech

I don't own a smartphone and I use SMS a lot. But I barely use online chat system nowadays (MSN/AIM used to be the rage within my peers circle but it's now gone and fb chat or g+hangout didn't replace it).
Post reply on HN